Jindal vs. Clinton

[Vandalshandle]

Jindal is a light weight by any standards. He thinks that he is in charge in Louisiana, but I lived there, and Louisiana is run by a political machine. They just bring in a figurehead. Personally, I think that they got tired of having to share the spoils with governors who were crooks, and brought in Jindal because he is too naïve to be a crook.

 

[Flopper]

I don't really care who runs for either party, but it would be fun for Jindal to get the nomination so that I can scream "racist!" at anyone who dares to disagree with him on anything.

PC for me!!



.

Except the GOP is too racist to nominated a guy named "Piyush" to the Presidency.

So you won't speak for liberals but have no problem speaking for all of the GOP. Damn projecting liberal.

I was Republican for something like 30 years. And, no, whenever I saw a "Piyush" at a party, he was kind of a fringe character standing in the corner no one would talk to.

Yes, that sounds exactly like the Republican Party meetings I attended 20 or 30 years ago. I doubt seriously there has been any change. This attitude is exactly what will eventually kill the party. Party leadership dominated by white Christian males is not going to make it in the 21st century.

 

[Flopper]

One of the funnies things about Jindal is his position on teaching Creationism. Within the same breath he supports a teacher's right to teach alternative views of creation, which they don't have and follows up with his support for schools teaching the best science free of religious and political influence.
I would like to seen him in the debates. So would the Democrat opposition.

 

[FA_Q2]

The Republican Party should be rename to Christian Conservative Party because that is exactly what it is. There is no room in the party for non-Christians, liberals, or minorities. If you're looking for diversity both in membership and ideas, your are in the wrong party.

Yeah, and you'd think this would have to change in the future, if they can't get enough votes because the number of people who fit their ideals is shrinking, they will have no choice but to move more to the center.

"move to the center" is based on the flawed concept of a linear left right scale.

The RP does not need to move to the center so much as they need to start actually doing what they say they represent. They continually scream smaller government and then grow it. they scream more freedom and then hatch the PA. They say they stand for freedom and then cant get off gay marriage and abortion. They say they are for simpler taxes and then they complicate them more. They say they are for capitalism and then they forget to mention the crony part.

I could be a republican if they ever did a single thing they state they stand for. Alas, they haven't for decades.

Nothing would strengthen Democrat support more than Republicans passing conservative legislation that restrict abortion rights, slash programs that benefit the poor, restrict civil rights, restrict gay marriage, and cut support for public education, and environmental issues. Republican control of government may be what's need to swing the country further to left permanently.

did you even bother to read what I said before quoting it?

 

[JoeB131]

Jindal.

But liberals won't support him because he has a funny name and he doesn't look like them.

Like Obama?

three things elected obama
1. black pride
2. white guilt
3. a biased lying media.

Only one thing elected Obama: George W. Bush.

bullshit. McCain/Palin was a loser from the start. Romney/Ryan was a good ticket but they ran a crappy campaign. Bush had nothing to do with either election.

Do you blame Bush for Hillary losing to obozo in the primaries?

you people are obsessed with Bush because he beat your clowns TWICE.

Actually, Bush only won the second time, and that was because we don't throw out presidents in the middle of wars. He stole his first election.

But Bush really did cost McCain the White House.

Iraq, Katrina, the Recession- Bush was a litany of disasters. That Americans all looked at their underwater mortgages and busted 401K's and said, "Why would we vote for more of that."

 

[JoeB131]

Jindal.

But liberals won't support him because he has a funny name and he doesn't look like them.

Like Obama?

three things elected obama
1. black pride
2. white guilt
3. a biased lying media.

Wow. I think I missed this bit of Retardation when you first posted it.

Okay- Let's look at that.

1- Black Pride. Obama got 95% of the black vote in 2008, which sounds impressive, until you realize that John Kerry got 88% and Al Gore got 90%. So it's not that impressive, really. The GOP has spent decades finding ways to piss off black people. Between Willie Horton ads and Ronnie Raygun talking about "young bucks" and "Welfare queens", blacks have been left pretty disillusioned with the GOP long before Obama got there.

2 - White guilt- Um- no, not really. Obama got 43% of the white vote in 2008 and 39% in 2012. This is actually on par with Al Gore getting 42% of the white vote and John Kerry getting 41% of it. Bill Clinton got 44% of the White vote in a three way race in 1996.

3 - Ah, the "biased media". Um. No. Frankly, the media gave too much credence to all the crazy shit you guys wanted to talk about like Bill Ayers and whether Obama was born in Kenya. And you had Faux News and Hate Radio repeating this shit to the masses.

No, what put Obama over the top was that Bush messed up everything, and McCain was just offering more of the same. And his running mate was possibly retarded.

 

[Flopper]

The Republican Party should be rename to Christian Conservative Party because that is exactly what it is. There is no room in the party for non-Christians, liberals, or minorities. If you're looking for diversity both in membership and ideas, your are in the wrong party.

Yeah, and you'd think this would have to change in the future, if they can't get enough votes because the number of people who fit their ideals is shrinking, they will have no choice but to move more to the center.

"move to the center" is based on the flawed concept of a linear left right scale.

The RP does not need to move to the center so much as they need to start actually doing what they say they represent. They continually scream smaller government and then grow it. they scream more freedom and then hatch the PA. They say they stand for freedom and then cant get off gay marriage and abortion. They say they are for simpler taxes and then they complicate them more. They say they are for capitalism and then they forget to mention the crony part.

I could be a republican if they ever did a single thing they state they stand for. Alas, they haven't for decades.

Nothing would strengthen Democrat support more than Republicans passing conservative legislation that restrict abortion rights, slash programs that benefit the poor, restrict civil rights, restrict gay marriage, and cut support for public education, and environmental issues. Republican control of government may be what's need to swing the country further to left permanently.

did you even bother to read what I said before quoting it?

Turning the Republican key issue, small government into legislation would be a loser with voters. Sure, everyone wants a smaller, more efficient, less costly government. Small government is almost as good as God, mother, and apple pie. However, when you put it into legislation and voters see the cuts required in social programs, education, healthcare, and defense, the only support you will have is from die hard conservatives. Remember the public reaction to Paul's Medicare plan. Although the plan wouldn't effect the benefits of current Medicare beneficiaries, public disapproval was about 85%. Remember the plan to privatize Social Security.

If Republicans get full control of government, they will certainly pass some legislation to cut government spending. However, it won't even come close to what conservatives want because to do so would be political suicide.

 

[Mac1958]

Jindal.

But liberals won't support him because he has a funny name and he doesn't look like them.

Like Obama?

three things elected obama
1. black pride
2. white guilt
3. a biased lying media.

Wow. I think I missed this bit of Retardation when you first posted it.

Okay- Let's look at that.

Joe's colorful analysis notwithstanding, those three reasons were certainly key.

1. Black pride: Joe discusses percentages but doesn't cover volume. Black turnout in pure numbers for Obama skyrocketed. I don't know how something that blatantly obvious could be missed. Well, okay, I do know how that could be missed. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/us/politics/21vote.html?_r=0). Most people know that black vote exploded for Obama. Most people.

2. White guilt: Another obvious reason. The American Left is consumed by it and it energized them to a degree not seen in many of our lifetimes. Finally a "clean" black guy (remember that gem?) had a shot at the White House and they were gonna get him in regardless of his background or qualifications. Then they'd "feel" a little better about themselves.

3. Media: Yet another obvious one, so obvious that the media itself has admitted it. Only the most committed, passionate left wing partisan ideologue would still cling to the notion that the press was not in the bag for Obama in 2008 and 2012.
Halperin Decries 8216 Disgusting 8217 Pro-Obama Media Bias in Election Coverage - ABC News NY Times Public Editor Admits Paper Has a Pro-Obama Bias Washington Post Admits Bias for Obama Against McCain Palin Journalists Admitting Liberal Bias Part One Media Research Center

.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Joe's colorful analysis notwithstanding, those three reasons were certainly key.

1. Black pride: Joe discusses percentages but doesn't cover volume. Black turnout in pure numbers for Obama skyrocketed. I don't know how something that blatantly obvious could be missed. Well, okay, I do know how that could be missed. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/us/politics/21vote.html?_r=0). Most people know that black vote exploded for Obama. Most people.

But that's not true.

In 2008, African Americans were 13% of the electorate. About on par with their percentage of the population.

In 2004, they were 11% of the electorate.

This is hardly an "explosion".

[
2. White guilt: Another obvious reason. The American Left is consumed by it and it energized them to a degree not seen in many of our lifetimes. Finally a "clean" black guy (remember that gem?) had a shot at the White House and they were gonna get him in regardless of his background or qualifications. Then they'd "feel" a little better about themselves.

Except Obama did no better amongst Whites than Kerry or Gore did and less well Bill Clinton in 1996.

[
3. Media: Yet another obvious one, so obvious that the media itself has admitted it. Only the most committed, passionate left wing partisan ideologue would still cling to the notion that the press was not in the bag for Obama in 2008 and 2012.

.

But we heard this same whine when Clinton and Gore and Kerry won, that the mean Old Media doesn't understand Conservatives and is too liberal and so on.

 

[Freewill]

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/historical/a7-elections.jpg

 

[Mac1958]

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/historical/a7-elections.jpg

Yup. Obama's wins were based on demographics and cult of personality. And I'd add one more, the fact that the GOP ran lousy candidates who offered absolutely no clear, positive vision or leadership.

The media has soured on Obama and is moving toward Hillary now. Obama is old news. They'll be able to push her with the demographics, but I don't see how they can build a cult of personality with her. They'll try.

.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yup. Obama's wins were based on demographics and cult of personality. And I'd add one more, the fact that the GOP ran lousy candidates who offered absolutely no clear, positive vision or leadership.

The media has soured on Obama and is moving toward Hillary now. Obama is old news. They'll be able to push her with the demographics, but I don't see how they can build a cult of personality with her. They'll try.
.

I just don't understand what's different between Obama and any other president. It's all about cult personality, it's a personality contest, demographics have to play a big part too.

The media will always move away from the incumbent near the of their term, and focus on the new and more exciting, but Hilary isn't the new and exciting, she'll be dropped as soon as someone more exciting comes along.

 

[Mac1958]

...Hilary isn't the new and exciting, she'll be dropped as soon as someone more exciting comes along.

Yeah, I can see that. Her primary weakness is that she doesn't seem to connect. Our culture - and this is definitely not a good thing - is just as interested in flash as it is in substance, probably even more so. The shiny object.

.

 

[frigidweirdo]

...Hilary isn't the new and exciting, she'll be dropped as soon as someone more exciting comes along.

Yeah, I can see that. Her primary weakness is that she doesn't seem to connect. Our culture - and this is definitely not a good thing - is just as interested in flash as it is in substance, probably even more so. The shiny object.

.

To be honest, you look at the last 5 presidents, the more the media becomes accessible, the more a candidate needs to look good. That's number one. Looking physically good, looking good in other senses too, like how they act, how they hold themselves, and I don't think Hilary has the ability to win the contest just based on that.
It's a majorly fickle world at the level of presidency now, and she's too old, too wrinkly, too just not what people want when they vote in the beauty pageant.

 

[Mac1958]

...Hilary isn't the new and exciting, she'll be dropped as soon as someone more exciting comes along.

Yeah, I can see that. Her primary weakness is that she doesn't seem to connect. Our culture - and this is definitely not a good thing - is just as interested in flash as it is in substance, probably even more so. The shiny object.

.

To be honest, you look at the last 5 presidents, the more the media becomes accessible, the more a candidate needs to look good. That's number one. Looking physically good, looking good in other senses too, like how they act, how they hold themselves, and I don't think Hilary has the ability to win the contest just based on that.
It's a majorly fickle world at the level of presidency now, and she's too old, too wrinkly, too just not what people want when they vote in the beauty pageant.

Oh yeah. A big topic back in my college media courses was the role image played in the first televised presidential debates, Kennedy vs. Nixon. Kennedy was good looking, soft around the edges and cool as a cucumber, Nixon came off as dark, severe and mean.

It's gone downhill since then, and we're all the worse for it.

.

 

[Redfish]

...Hilary isn't the new and exciting, she'll be dropped as soon as someone more exciting comes along.

Yeah, I can see that. Her primary weakness is that she doesn't seem to connect. Our culture - and this is definitely not a good thing - is just as interested in flash as it is in substance, probably even more so. The shiny object.

.

To be honest, you look at the last 5 presidents, the more the media becomes accessible, the more a candidate needs to look good. That's number one. Looking physically good, looking good in other senses too, like how they act, how they hold themselves, and I don't think Hilary has the ability to win the contest just based on that.
It's a majorly fickle world at the level of presidency now, and she's too old, too wrinkly, too just not what people want when they vote in the beauty pageant.

true, except that Romney's image was pretty good. His campaign sucked, but based on your analysis, he should have won.

 

[Redfish]

...Hilary isn't the new and exciting, she'll be dropped as soon as someone more exciting comes along.

Yeah, I can see that. Her primary weakness is that she doesn't seem to connect. Our culture - and this is definitely not a good thing - is just as interested in flash as it is in substance, probably even more so. The shiny object.

.

To be honest, you look at the last 5 presidents, the more the media becomes accessible, the more a candidate needs to look good. That's number one. Looking physically good, looking good in other senses too, like how they act, how they hold themselves, and I don't think Hilary has the ability to win the contest just based on that.
It's a majorly fickle world at the level of presidency now, and she's too old, too wrinkly, too just not what people want when they vote in the beauty pageant.

Oh yeah. A big topic back in my college media courses was the role image played in the first televised presidential debates, Kennedy vs. Nixon. Kennedy was good looking, soft around the edges and cool as a cucumber, Nixon came off as dark, severe and mean.

It's gone downhill since then, and we're all the worse for it.

.

for some stupid reason, we want our presidents to be celebrities, Obama wants to be a celebrity, he has no interest in the JOB of president.

 

[Mac1958]

for some stupid reason, we want our presidents to be celebrities, Obama wants to be a celebrity, he has no interest in the JOB of president.

I consider it an example of a culture in rapid decay.

Look all around - "celebrities" who are celebrities for no reason other than they're celebrities (from Kardashian to Hilton to "reality TV"), television "entertainment" that includes people literally shitting onscreen, our societal addiction to "selfies", horrific song lyrics, self-esteem a higher priority than quality of work, lowered standards everywhere you look.

Obama - and I'm not talking about his politics - is a symptom of the decay.

.

.

 

[Mac1958]

Shit, double post.

 

[Redfish]

for some stupid reason, we want our presidents to be celebrities, Obama wants to be a celebrity, he has no interest in the JOB of president.

I consider it an example of a culture in rapid decay.

Look all around - "celebrities" who are celebrities for no reason other than they're celebrities (from Kardashian to Hilton to "reality TV"), television "entertainment" that includes people literally shitting onscreen, our societal addiction to "selfies", horrific song lyrics, self-esteem a higher priority than quality of work, lowered standards everywhere you look.

Obama - and I'm not talking about his politics - is a symptom of the decay.

.

.

yes