I don't see him at the end, either. As far the interest goes, it really is a double-edged sword. Instead of blaming the media and everyone, why can't the Party take a hard look at the mirror? They have to wonder why the Party got the perception against women and minorities? It is everyone else' fault, of course.
I like Kasich the best so far.
I agree they've been tone deaf on many of the social issues of the day. But on at least one of those issues, the so-called "war on women", it has been the liberal media, which for all intents and purposes, views itself as an arm of the Democratic Party, that has parroted Democratic talking points. A fake issue that only stupid lemmings believe.
The alarming news for the Democrats is that they're looking stagnant, corrupt and short on candidates. Hillary is up to her eyeballs with Obama's FBI investigating her server scandal. Her principal competition is an avowed socialist ( they usually don't win ). And, anyone who watched the early Republican debate knows Clinton would get her butt kicked by the only other woman in the race if the two debated.
I filed a post back in April saying I don't think Hillary gets the nomination. I believe that now more than ever, particularly since I don't believe Obama's Justice Department's investigation into the server scandal is coincidence. She'll be forced out of the race and the Democrats will have to choose between a couple of has-been white guys, a socialist, and a woman who lied about her Native American ancestry. Now, there's a diverse group for you ! It should get interesting very soon.
0
Quote Originally Posted by bunny651:
I don't see him at the end, either. As far the interest goes, it really is a double-edged sword. Instead of blaming the media and everyone, why can't the Party take a hard look at the mirror? They have to wonder why the Party got the perception against women and minorities? It is everyone else' fault, of course.
I like Kasich the best so far.
I agree they've been tone deaf on many of the social issues of the day. But on at least one of those issues, the so-called "war on women", it has been the liberal media, which for all intents and purposes, views itself as an arm of the Democratic Party, that has parroted Democratic talking points. A fake issue that only stupid lemmings believe.
The alarming news for the Democrats is that they're looking stagnant, corrupt and short on candidates. Hillary is up to her eyeballs with Obama's FBI investigating her server scandal. Her principal competition is an avowed socialist ( they usually don't win ). And, anyone who watched the early Republican debate knows Clinton would get her butt kicked by the only other woman in the race if the two debated.
I filed a post back in April saying I don't think Hillary gets the nomination. I believe that now more than ever, particularly since I don't believe Obama's Justice Department's investigation into the server scandal is coincidence. She'll be forced out of the race and the Democrats will have to choose between a couple of has-been white guys, a socialist, and a woman who lied about her Native American ancestry. Now, there's a diverse group for you ! It should get interesting very soon.
I respectfully disagree. I believe most of the damage were self-inflicted, often by few ignorant radicals. The problem is when that happens, too few people within the Party have to courage to speak out against it, thus furthering that image. Was the media blown them out of proportion? Absolutely!
0
I respectfully disagree. I believe most of the damage were self-inflicted, often by few ignorant radicals. The problem is when that happens, too few people within the Party have to courage to speak out against it, thus furthering that image. Was the media blown them out of proportion? Absolutely!
I respectfully disagree. I believe most of the damage were self-inflicted, often by few ignorant radicals. The problem is when that happens, too few people within the Party have to courage to speak out against it, thus furthering that image. Was the media blown them out of proportion? Absolutely!
You're probably right, and I have a hard time quarreling with your point about self-inflicted damage. But I do think I saw some quality performances in the first debate. Kasich and Rubio seemed sharp and they'd probably bring Florida, Ohio and the Latin vote if they ran together. Also, what fun if it were Hillary debating Carla ! I know where my money would be on that one.
Also, one last point. The Obamas hate the Clintons. It was Obama, through Valerie Jarrett, who ratted out Hillary on the server scandal, and I think the FBI investigation ( by Obama's Justice Department ) is designed to force Hillary out of the race. Where does that leave the "party of diversity" if it happens ? They'd have a couple of ancient white guys, one a socialist, and a woman who lied about being Native American to advance her career, to the detriment of real Native Americans. I think the Republicans look younger, more diverse, more intelligent and less corrupt by comparison.
0
Quote Originally Posted by bunny651:
I respectfully disagree. I believe most of the damage were self-inflicted, often by few ignorant radicals. The problem is when that happens, too few people within the Party have to courage to speak out against it, thus furthering that image. Was the media blown them out of proportion? Absolutely!
You're probably right, and I have a hard time quarreling with your point about self-inflicted damage. But I do think I saw some quality performances in the first debate. Kasich and Rubio seemed sharp and they'd probably bring Florida, Ohio and the Latin vote if they ran together. Also, what fun if it were Hillary debating Carla ! I know where my money would be on that one.
Also, one last point. The Obamas hate the Clintons. It was Obama, through Valerie Jarrett, who ratted out Hillary on the server scandal, and I think the FBI investigation ( by Obama's Justice Department ) is designed to force Hillary out of the race. Where does that leave the "party of diversity" if it happens ? They'd have a couple of ancient white guys, one a socialist, and a woman who lied about being Native American to advance her career, to the detriment of real Native Americans. I think the Republicans look younger, more diverse, more intelligent and less corrupt by comparison.
Quote Originally Posted by bunny651: I respectfully Where does that leave the "party of diversity" if it happens ? They'd have a couple of ancient white guys, one a socialist, and a woman who lied about being Native American to advance her career, to the detriment of real Native Americans. I think the Republicans look younger, more diverse, more intelligent and less corrupt by comparison.
I thought you were trying to make a serious point until I saw this satire. Good work.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 1129ken:
Quote Originally Posted by bunny651: I respectfully Where does that leave the "party of diversity" if it happens ? They'd have a couple of ancient white guys, one a socialist, and a woman who lied about being Native American to advance her career, to the detriment of real Native Americans. I think the Republicans look younger, more diverse, more intelligent and less corrupt by comparison.
I thought you were trying to make a serious point until I saw this satire. Good work.
Cause if just me fubah2 and Kelly talking in politics then no dialogue is achieved no discussion just the gruesome twosome and myself discussing nothing edigressing to someone's is boxed.
0
Felt I need to bump some of the older threads.
Cause if just me fubah2 and Kelly talking in politics then no dialogue is achieved no discussion just the gruesome twosome and myself discussing nothing edigressing to someone's is boxed.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.