May 23, 201511 yr So, no one really has any really good things to say about Hillary or any good reasons to vote for her? Quite a few Dems on this board and you've got nothing? No surprise for me, but very telling.
May 23, 201511 yr So, no one really has any really good things to say about Hillary or any good reasons to vote for her? Quite a few Dems on this board and you've got nothing? No surprise for me, but very telling. I think I posted earlier that it doesn't matter who the Democrats run, they're still going to win. They have such a huge advantage starting out with the electoral college that it's nearly impossible to defeat them in a presidential race in this day and time. Policy means nothing anymore. Vote for the Democrat candidate because they're not the Republican candidate. Someone might lose a few entitlement programs if a Republican won. That's the thinking I suppose. Buying votes with welfare seems to be the new trend.
May 23, 201511 yr I think I posted earlier that it doesn't matter who the Democrats run, they're still going to win. They have such a huge advantage starting out with the electoral college that it's nearly impossible to defeat them in a presidential race in this day and time. Policy means nothing anymore. Vote for the Democrat candidate because they're not the Republican candidate. Someone might lose a few entitlement programs if a Republican won. That's the thinking I suppose. Buying votes with welfare seems to be the new trend. Buying votes with welfare is a myth. The reason the GOP is sucking pondwater in presidential elections is because of its abysmal record of attracting non-white voters. Romney three years ago did a stellar job of locking down the white vote, yet still got hammered in the electoral college.
May 23, 201511 yr Wonder if Trinity alum votes straight ticket ? LOL . At least he /she is honest about it . I didn't used to. I do now because I think that the modern Republican party has gone off the rails crazy. My ideal candidate would bring republican management style and efficiency to democrat programs. That used to be what most Republican candidates offered. Now, they don't want to make the government run better, they want to kill the government.
May 23, 201511 yr Okay, while I agree with how Dems have fooled non-whites into thinking they care about them, that's not what the thread is about. Come on. I'll take it one further. What good reason, other than she's not a Republican/Conservative, would you have to vote for her? What impresses you about her for a role as president? What has she done to gain your confidence that she is the best candidate to lead this country and make things better for all?
May 23, 201511 yr I think I posted earlier that it doesn't matter who the Democrats run, they're still going to win. They have such a huge advantage starting out with the electoral college that it's nearly impossible to defeat them in a presidential race in this day and time. Policy means nothing anymore. Vote for the Democrat candidate because they're not the Republican candidate. Someone might lose a few entitlement programs if a Republican won. That's the thinking I suppose. Buying votes with welfare seems to be the new trend. Those voters need to look to Detroit for a glimpse of the future. Long time Democrat rule has really worked out for them hasn't it?
May 23, 201511 yr Okay, while I agree with how Dems have fooled non-whites into thinking they care about them, that's not what the thread is about. Come on. I'll take it one further. What good reason, other than she's not a Republican/Conservative, would you have to vote for her? What impresses you about her for a role as president? What has she done to gain your confidence that she is the best candidate to lead this country and make things better for all? A presidential election is not about "What have you done?" It's about "What will you do?" As I pointed out earlier, Reagan had no record of national achievement in 1980, yet beat Carter decisively. Why? Because in that election the country was unhappy with Carter, as opposed to being enamored with Reagan. In other words, voting against a party or philosophy is certainly as valid, if not more valid, than voting for a person.
May 23, 201511 yr A presidential election is not about "What have you done?" It's about "What will you do?" /QUOTE] Correct. Or sometimes, "what won't you do that your opponent will do"?
May 23, 201511 yr A presidential election is not about "What have you done?" It's about "What will you do?" As I pointed out earlier, Reagan had no record of national achievement in 1980, yet beat Carter decisively. Why? Because in that election the country was unhappy with Carter, as opposed to being enamored with Reagan. In other words, voting against a party or philosophy is certainly as valid, if not more valid, than voting for a person. Carter too had no record of national achievement since he was dismal as a president and had been a governor before then. No Governor can claim to have a record of national achievement. Not Carter, not Reagan, not Clinton, etc. Hillary's problem is that she has no record of national achievement after spending 13-14 years as a senator and administration official. Past performance is all voters can go on to determine what someone might do in the future. No one can believe anything a politician says.
May 23, 201511 yr Those voters need to look to Detroit for a glimpse of the future. Long time Democrat rule has really worked out for them hasn't it? If you want a glimpse of in-the-moment GOP ineptitude, take a look at what Brownback and the Republicans are doing in Kansas.
May 23, 201511 yr If you want a glimpse of in-the-moment GOP ineptitude, take a look at what Brownback and the Republicans are doing in Kansas. Obviously you have no disagreement with my assessment of what long term democrat leadership will lead to since your response was the old "he did it too" classic. Thanks.
May 23, 201511 yr A presidential election is not about "What have you done?" It's about "What will you do?" As I pointed out earlier, Reagan had no record of national achievement in 1980, yet beat Carter decisively. Why? Because in that election the country was unhappy with Carter, as opposed to being enamored with Reagan. In other words, voting against a party or philosophy is certainly as valid, if not more valid, than voting for a person. In other words, you can't answer the question he asked.
May 23, 201511 yr If you want a glimpse of in-the-moment GOP ineptitude, take a look at what Brownback and the Republicans are doing in Kansas. Don't know of any city in Kansas being dead broke.
May 23, 201511 yr Don't know of any city in Kansas being dead broke. This link will bring you up to speed on the problems in the Sunflower State, brought on by the Republicans' zeal to cut business taxes. Jobs plummet in Kansas at worst possible time for Gov. Sam Brownback amid budget crisis | The Kansas City Star The Kansas City Star
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.