It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Democratic Party can't win in '08, they don't have the candidate.

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Well, Obama just moved left of Hillary calling for all troops in Iraq to come home by March of '08 and a socialized healthcare system, good luck! Obama can speak, there is no question about that, too bad he has a losing strategy for the US.

Hillary, is Hillary how could anyone stand her for 8 years is beyond me. Hilary is a woman of the polls and her stands on political issues change faster than the wind changes direction.

A shallow party who offers nothing but an even more socialized goverment and a guaranteed losing strategy in Iraq does not offer the average american much. Especially since they are doing nothing to prevent illegal immigration which is hurting a majority of blue collar workers nation wide.

Furthermore, since the Democratic party never chose to enter the debate on the War in Iraq and never chose to offer another viable strategy on Iraq their credibility is non existant on the issue. Americans know if they elect a democratic candidate in '08 we lose the war in Iraq. That is a BIG problem for the Dems to confront!


[edit on 10-2-2007 by Low Orbit]




posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 01:24 PM
link   
It does look like the Democrats are going to run on the "Defeat in Iraq" issue. Hillary will lead the way and will be defeated by whoever the Republican nominee will be.

Americans may not like the way the War in Iraq is going. But they certainly don't want a US defeat, like the Democrats want.

Hillary is a lock for the Democrats. This has been their plan for years. ALGORE and Kerry were sacraficial lambs. Like they even had a chance!




posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 01:34 PM
link   
I much rather see Algore(thanks for spelling it correctly, like Rush does) get the parties nomination instead of Hilary, but everyone knows the dems can't say no to Hilary. I completely agree I don't think there is a candidate that can lose to Hilary on the Republican side.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Low Orbit
Hillary, is Hillary how could anyone stand her for 8 years is beyond me. Hilary is a woman of the polls and her stands on political issues change faster than the wind changes direction.
[edit on 10-2-2007 by Low Orbit]


I do not feel she is the best candidate but just wanted to point out that we do vote every 4 years so the part about standing her for 8 is up to the people should she get elected. I do know that the process doesn't work properly but we still get the chance of someone else every 4 even if it's rigged.


ape

posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 05:56 PM
link   
oh I agree 100%, the democrats are shallow, obama is all talk and edwards is a scumbag. hilary is a communist. IMO that party will eventually be replaced by the Libertarian party, the democratic party is too european and eventually uninformed democratic voters will see the light when they decide to open a book.

[edit on 11-2-2007 by ape]



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ape
oh I agree 100%, the democrats are shallow,


let's see your statements before i'm as convinced as you




obama is all talk


all talk?

let's see his resume
-degree in political science specializing in foreign relations from Columbia
-Harvard law degree
-In 1985, he moved to Chicago to direct a non-profit project assisting local churches to organize job training programs for residents of poor neighborhoods. (direct citation from wikipedia)
-worked for the civil rights law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland
-taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1993 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004
-junior senator

hmmm....
all talk?
not with that kind of background



and edwards is a scumbag.


name calling



hilary is a communist.


more name calling



IMO that party will eventually be replaced by the Libertarian party, the democratic party is too european and eventually uninformed democratic voters will see the light when they decide to open a book.


first of all, what's wrong with "european"?


secondly, wow, more insults, why am i not surprised?
hmm, i'm planning on voting for the democratic candidate in '08 (unless any of the republican candidates can convince me otherwise)
i'm well informed
i've read at least 4 books in the last month

stop with the insults



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 12:38 AM
link   
Here is what is wrong with Europe, most European countries immigration and welfare systems are so well funded that temporary residents and non-citizens can apply for unemployment etc. If this is available to non-residents just think what social services are available to their citizens. Socialization, leads to lack of competition which in my opinion often times leads to indifference and economic stagnation. Their cities are beautiful and their people are awsome but excessive holidays and vacation time add up to a lack of production, according to my capitalist mentality.

I am torn on this issue. Often times I think the US wouldn't of ever had the problem with the War on Terror if it modelled itself more like Europe in which it entrusted more power to individual states rather than a strong central/corporate government. If the American voter could of some how rid our government of our corporate conscience maybe we wouldn't have to be knee deep in it over seas. But then I think if the US took the EU's example could we even continue to afford the military that we have today or would stronger states lead to decreased profits and taxes. Once we can't afford a military we become weak and our economy would tank. Europe's economy should be tanking right now but the US has it's back and everybody knows it.

I was excited about Obama as a candidate until I heard SOCIALIZE healthcare, SOCIALIZE healthcare, SOCIALIZE healthcare. Although everyone knows our healthcare system is broken socialization is not the solution to the problem. Socialization means that you are allowing another party to enter into the decission making process for when you are in the hospital sick or injured. The government will have the final say into what will happen to the patient. If healthcare is the movie the Wizard of Oz government in a socialized healthcare system would be the Wizard. He stands behind the curtain and the facade of the Wizard of Oz is realized, how brilliant, but NOT for OUR healthcare system. I don't know about you but I don't trust government with making decisions dealing with my health. For those who don't remember or never saw the Wizard of Oz, he turned out to be a fake, a fraud, a phony.

The rest of the candidates offer no way to win the war in Iraq. The more terror is in the news the weaker the democratic candidate is going to be. Although the average American wants to get our troops home ASAP they also still want to win the War on Terror. We need to finish what we have started and to pull out early is to forget of the sacrifice our fallen heroes.


ape

posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by ape
oh I agree 100%, the democrats are shallow,


let's see your statements before i'm as convinced as you




obama is all talk


all talk?

let's see his resume
-degree in political science specializing in foreign relations from Columbia
-Harvard law degree
-In 1985, he moved to Chicago to direct a non-profit project assisting local churches to organize job training programs for residents of poor neighborhoods. (direct citation from wikipedia)
-worked for the civil rights law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland
-taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1993 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004
-junior senator

hmmm....
all talk?
not with that kind of background



and edwards is a scumbag.


name calling



hilary is a communist.


more name calling



IMO that party will eventually be replaced by the Libertarian party, the democratic party is too european and eventually uninformed democratic voters will see the light when they decide to open a book.


first of all, what's wrong with "european"?


secondly, wow, more insults, why am i not surprised?
hmm, i'm planning on voting for the democratic candidate in '08 (unless any of the republican candidates can convince me otherwise)
i'm well informed
i've read at least 4 books in the last month

stop with the insults


i can insult any politician I want it's my right, dont supress my freedom of speech buddy, I will not stop anything and you are nobody to ask me to. let me ask you one thing, whats obamas stance on federal taxation and medical?? what about global trade? what about our manufacturing base and industrial? no all these people want to talk about it iraq and even then they sound like complete idiots. I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to demonize me as it's pretty obvious that's your goal since I shut you down in a different thread.

haha, take a look at his domestic policies if u can find any infor about it he is a rookie and a fake. don't speak to me thinking you know something you are the guy who defended protestors spitting on soldiers. you're opinion is irrelevant as you really dont know what you're talking about. haha you even asked me to apologize for my opinion about the people flicking cigs spitting and soldiers and vandalizing property at the disgracefull protest. you have yet to make yourself clear on that thread on the news forum which I have asked of you.

i can care less who you vote for, however it does not suprise me that you say you're for democrats in 08. I think you need to educate yourself a bit.



[edit on 12-2-2007 by ape]



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 09:18 PM
link   
we have the perfect canidate Kucinich in 2008 it time for so REAL change this man can make it happen!!!!



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Kucinich in 2008 kucinich.us



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ape
i can insult any politician I want it's my right, dont supress my freedom of speech buddy, I will not stop anything and you are nobody to ask me to.


there's no reason to insult politicians in civil discourse
that's why it is CIVIL



let me ask you one thing, whats obamas stance on federal taxation and medical?? what about global trade? what about our manufacturing base and industrial?


well, i dont' care about his position on federal taxation
medical? well, define medical
he supports an expanded campaign against AIDS
accountability for hospitals
more genetic medicine
and further emphasis on the fight against lead poisoning

manufacturing, i don't care about

i can tell you that he has well defined positions on: energy, cleaning up politics, and improving education

all of which are very important issues



no all these people want to talk about it iraq and even then they sound like complete idiots. I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to demonize me as it's pretty obvious that's your goal since I shut you down in a different thread.


"shut me down" in a different thread?
which one?

honestly, i'm not demonizing you, i'm pointing out name calling, a practice that has no place in a community that DENIES IGNORANCE



haha, take a look at his domestic policies if u can find any infor about it he is a rookie and a fake.


yet you don't seem to want to point them out..



don't speak to me thinking you know something you are the guy who defended protestors spitting on soldiers.


no, i didn't
i simply stated that the situation was most likely overblown
i never said spitting on soldiers was right
spitting on anyone is wrong
there's no special privelege for soldiers there



you're opinion is irrelevant as you really dont know what you're talking about.


who's demonizing people now?



haha you even asked me to apologize for my opinion about the people flicking cigs spitting and soldiers and vandalizing property at the disgracefull protest.


i asked you to apologize for ignorant insults that grouped people by association to the few bad people that did it



you have yet to make yourself clear on that thread on the news forum which I have asked of you.


apparently not well enough
because i didn't actually defend people spitting on anyone, flicking cigarettes, etc



i can care less who you vote for, however it does not suprise me that you say you're for democrats in 08. I think you need to educate yourself a bit.


not really, i'm quite well informed in political matters


anyway, i'm putting you on ignore if you don't stop using insults in civil discourse
it's immature and uncalled for



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 12:14 AM
link   
After a night out with a bunch of ivy league liberals, it's good to be back in some ball-containing company. All the high IQs, environmentalism, acceptance, reasonable points of view, and "facts," were really getting on my nerves. The only reason I do it is because conservative girls won't "take it like a champ."

It's high in protein

Moving on.

2008 is going to be an interesting election, I mean, what with the greatest president ever leaving office. His performance is going to reverberate throughout the Republican party for years to come. It doesn't really matter who the Dems run because the GOP is a shoe in. I would dare say that the Dems should be preparing for 2012, but after Bush's colossal presidency, even 2012 is in the bag. Yup, it would take a scandel of epic proportions to hurt the GOP in 2008, kind of like when Democratic Representative Mark Foley was busted for being a gay pedophile, but since being either gay or a pedophile is immoral, what are the chances of that happening?




df1

posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by KLSyesca
we have the perfect canidate Kucinich in 2008 it time for so REAL change this man can make it happen!!!!

Dennis is the only democrat I would give my vote. However the winner of the nomination will be Edwards. This guy has been tirelessly grass roots campaigning since the last vote in 2004 was cast and it will pay off come primary time. John is far to the left of either of the media anointed front runners, but his gender, white skin & southern drawl makes his leftist message acceptable even in the red states. My opposition to Edwards is that his views are so politically pliable that we don't know what he really believes.

Barrack is a johnny come lately and Hillary has the baggage of being Bill's wife.

All that said, the democrats could run Jim Trafficant from his jail cell and he would beat any Republican. The Republicans are so candidate challenged that they might try to lure Lieberman to seek their nomination. Rudy is the mafia Don of NYC, Mitt belongs to a religious cult and McCain is the Manchurian candidate, turned when he was a POW. Name calling is so much fun.

[edit on 24-2-2007 by df1]


ape

posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 07:25 PM
link   

by madnessinmysoul
i asked you to apologize for ignorant insults that grouped people by association to the few bad people that did it


first of all nobody stopped anybody and the actions of the people protesting and vandalizing was encouraged and the capital police allowed it to happen. people standing by graffitti taking pictures of their work etc, the soldier gave full details on what happened to him and said it was everybody he encountered that day.. not just a 'few' like you claim.

ok I find it funny you say this



not really, i'm quite well informed in political matters


when before hand you stated this



well, i dont' care about his position on federal taxation


this is a joke right? you dont know anything about politics if you are not versed on this subject buck.



medical? well, define medical


he calls for complete government control over the individuals medical, this is socialism and anti-american and will not be tolerated. once again you prove how uninformed you are.



manufacturing, i don't care about


then you dont care about american jobs being outsourced?



i can tell you that he has well defined positions on: energy, cleaning up politics, and improving education


cleaning up politics? laugh. improving education? the teachers union ( all democrats love the teachers union ) is destroying our education system and needs to be done away with. get rid of this we will be heading in the right direction. government needs to get the hell out of our education system.

the above totally justifies this comment by me



you're opinion is irrelevant as you really dont know what you're talking about.


this was my original post



oh I agree 100%, the democrats are shallow, obama is all talk and edwards is a scumbag. hilary is a communist. IMO that party will eventually be replaced by the Libertarian party, the democratic party is too european and eventually uninformed democratic voters will see the light when they decide to open a book.


hardly insulting, first of all democrats are shallow and they constantly prove this.. obama is indeed all talk and he is a rookie who needs to be a governor if he wants proper experience.. hillary is indeed a communist and I can give a direct quote that she made that the DNC i believe.. " I want to take those profits ".. she is dangerous. edwards is infact a scumbag as him and everyone else involved in his money grubbing practice is one of the reasons why medical costs are so high, he use to sue the hell out of doctors for malpractice and although some cases i'm sure are justified alot of them aren't and are scams to obtain money and heavily abused.



yet you don't seem to want to point them out..


I have pointed out plenty, he has a long way to go and he is a socialist, his policies back my opinion up. this website is supposed to be anti government yet it's filled with liberal democrats who just hate bush and everything that has to do with the US and republicans.. whats ironic about this is that the people they put forward are for complete government control over the individual.. very odd.



"shut me down" in a different thread?


in the thread where you defended people spitting and flicking cigs at a soldier and defended vandalism on government property that my tax dollars pay for.

have a nice day.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
It does look like the Democrats are going to run on the "Defeat in Iraq" issue. Hillary will lead the way and will be defeated by whoever the Republican nominee will be.

Americans may not like the way the War in Iraq is going. But they certainly don't want a US defeat, like the Democrats want.

Hillary is a lock for the Democrats. This has been their plan for years. ALGORE and Kerry were sacraficial lambs. Like they even had a chance!





Prove the Democrats want the U.S. to be defeated? You have been yakking these Rushisms left and right about the Left wanting defeat. Prove this/ Where can you prove they wish this? All you have is false information from Rush Limbaugh. The left policy has nothing about American defeat. This is just right wing political scare tactics. Wake up? The left hasn't gotten all the answers and nor does the right thats why we are where we are today.

[edit on 24-2-2007 by tsloan]



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Two hearty "way aboves" for sunsetspawn and df1.


Hillary: Unelectable. Too ambitious, wife of Bill, and (in my opinion) too moderate given her senate record. She may or may not be a woman, which will certainly cost her votes in the south. See "Obama."

Obama: Black.

Kucinich: The most qualified candidate. The nation that bought...er...brought you Bush can't possibly put an articulate, knowledgable politician with a strong vision for the future in the highest office. That would make sense.

Edwards: By default the next president of the United States, regardless of what Hannity says.


The GOP, after screwing up this country (and others) for the last six years, doesn't stand a chance.

[edit on 24-2-2007 by befoiled]



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Befoiled, if you are alluding to the fact that Obama can't win the Presidency because he is black you are wrong.

You must be joking. I am not saying we live in a colorless world however I am saying people vote with their pocketbooks not their eyes.

I personally don't think Obama can get America to sign on to socialized health care program though, after all it's socialized. If he can sell this 1 issue to the American people he will over night turn himself into the candidate to beat. Obama is the most appealing democratic candidate right now and I wish him the best of luck. But this might just be because I trust Hilary even less.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 09:45 PM
link   
www.youtube.com... we need a real person with truth on his mind runnig the country!!!!



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Low Orbit
Befoiled, if you are alluding to the fact that Obama can't win the Presidency because he is black you are wrong.

You must be joking. I am not saying we live in a colorless world however I am saying people vote with their pocketbooks not their eyes.

I personally don't think Obama can get America to sign on to socialized health care program though, after all it's socialized. If he can sell this 1 issue to the American people he will over night turn himself into the candidate to beat. Obama is the most appealing democratic candidate right now and I wish him the best of luck. But this might just be because I trust Hilary even less.


Well I am saying that. I am saying that Obama would lose badly in the south - and therefore lose the election - simply because he is black. Or to be more precise, mainly because he is black. Of course it's just my opinion.

I won't deny his charisma, intelligence, or vision. I think he'd be a good candidate and his skin color means nothing to me. I suspect, however, a large enough percentage of voters in this country - enough to sway an election - feel differently. I hope I'm wrong.

I agree with you that this dirty little word "socialized" will ensure the poor and many in the middle class continue to be denied access to quality health care.


ape

posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 06:41 PM
link   
i'm confused why people are supporting kucinich?? he is attempting to opress freedom of speech by silencing conservative talk radio with the so called 'fairness doctrine'. so the news media is allowed to be hardcore liberal, the print media is allowed to be hardcore liberal but conservative talk radio can't go about doing what they do best and thats talking about the issues the majority wants to hear with facts. this is a fact.

whats crazy about the left in this country and this is my opinion is that they resemble nazis when it comes to alternate opinions that disagree with them, thats the conclusion that I have come to. they are socialist and fascists and communists all rolled into one, they refuse to hear alternate opinions and want to smear and shout you down ( early nazi strategy, some california college campuses are really bad ). liberal talk radio is a failure and thats why it's almost non existant and bankrupt, they have the major outlets but thats just not good enough, they want to whole pie ! oh and also my individual rights, my privacy and income.

kucinich is a joke and a socialist/nazi.



[edit on 26-2-2007 by ape]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join