Democratic Nomination?

Originally posted by BigRed
Well, the thing also is, some voters are truly ignorant, while others do only vote for candidates based on the fact that (for example) Hilary is female or that Obama is black. A waitress at my work clearly said she was only voting for Hilary because she is a woman. Likewise, something I can't stand more than anything (even more than apathetic voters) is uneducated ones. I don't expect them to know everything. The girlfriend of my friend is voting for Obama just because. She can't even state any reasons why. Just because I suppose...

Nonetheless, I think it be great to seek alternative energy sources and not rely on foreign oil as much as we do. Especially being in bed with dictators simply for their oil. That is horrible. I wouldn't say energy is a big issue for me as foreign policy is (although energy does tie into that a bit), as well as the economy and restoring the principals of the U.S. Constitution.

If this was the only post of yours that I read...I could tell that you were a "Ron Paul"er. Not that that is a bad thing, though.

Can a person who knows more about the current democratic party's stance on energy let me know if they are more about being "green" nowadays? Site a source, if possible.

Though I have almost made up my mind for who my vote is going for...Ron Paul...I am still open to a democrat if they can win more over with their campaigning points.

On another note, I feel that on the whole, the American people are wanting a Democratic president in office because of Bush..I may be wrong...but that is the general impression that I am getting. Would anyone care to address that point. (either disagree or agree..doesn't matter.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
If this was the only post of yours that I read...I could tell that you were a "Ron Paul"er. Not that that is a bad thing, though.

Can a person who knows more about the current democratic party's stance on energy let me know if they are more about being "green" nowadays? Site a source, if possible.

Though I have almost made up my mind for who my vote is going for...Ron Paul...I am still open to a democrat if they can win more over with their campaigning points.

On another note, I feel that on the whole, the American people are wanting a Democratic president in office because of Bush..I may be wrong...but that is the general impression that I am getting. Would anyone care to address that point. (either disagree or agree..doesn't matter.)

I'm not too sure if the Democrats adopting the philosophy of going "green", but I would pressume so considering the whole propaganda of Al Gore and what have you. Like Hilary supporsts "green-collar job training", while Edwards on the other hand is considered to have a mixed environmental record and Obama I'm not too sure really. But I don't doubt they would go "green" if it meant votes.

In America there shouldn't be a left-right party, it should be a up-down party. Up being freedom, money, US constitution, down being the opposite.

The Des Moines Register, the largest newspaper in Iowa, officially endorsed Hillary Clinton for President on Saturday

Originally posted by Strangelove
The Des Moines Register, the largest newspaper in Iowa, officially endorsed Hillary Clinton for President on Saturday

If that is true...that is utter stupidity on their part...not because its Hilary...but because it is an endorsement of a presidential candidate. Their objectivity just went out the window with that endorsement. (Though most educated voters realize that that media is hardly objective...a news outlet should at least try to appear as objective as possible.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
If that is true...that is utter stupidity on their part...not because its Hilary...but because it is an endorsement of a presidential candidate. Their objectivity just went out the window with that endorsement. (Though most educated voters realize that that media is hardly objective...a news outlet should at least try to appear as objective as possible.)

I think it is fine if they admit to their biased (CNN still needs to), but it still doesn't make it right.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If that is true...that is utter stupidity on their part...not because its Hilary...but because it is an endorsement of a presidential candidate. Their objectivity just went out the window with that endorsement. (Though most educated voters realize that that media is hardly objective...a news outlet should at least try to appear as objective as possible.)

Originally posted by Strangelove
A) it is true and B) they endorse a candidate every election, usually 3 weeks before the caucus (which they did)

Originally posted by Bardock42
Of course tradition doesn't make his point less valid.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I disagree. They should either be true to journalist ideals or admit to their bias.

Originally posted by BigRed
I think it is fine if they admit to their biased (CNN still needs to), but it still doesn't make it right.

Originally posted by Strangelove
A) it is true and B) they endorse a candidate every election, usually 3 weeks before the caucus (which they did)

Originally posted by Bardock42
Of course tradition doesn't make his point less valid.

Originally posted by Strangelove
True enough.

All of those a good posts.

I brought that point up earlier because my former room mate used to be a journalist. He used to tell me tons of stories about how ridiculously unbiased the news media is. He strived his hardest to cover the stories as least biased as possible but his producers made it extremely difficult to do so...especially when they would cut out key portions of an interview to change the interpretation of that statements made in the interview or how a certain situation was spun to appear negative when it was neutral or even positive to begin with.

The media has a very powerful influence on what people think and many generations in countries long past have know this. It isn't a new concept. I just become disgusted when a organization responsible for delivering information about the world around us, boldly flies in the face of objectivity. I knew that the press endorsed candidates sometimes...but I had no idea that Des Moines Register endorsed a presidential candidate; I have heard of that news paper...but only because of the presidential elections...come to think of it, I probably heard of that paper BECAUSE of them endorsing a presidential candidate and I am just forgetting a few things...wouldn't be the first time. This endorsement gets on my nerves because, of course, the Iowa Caucus. As most of you can tell from my posts...I hate blind, ignorant, and incorrect* votes...and this endorsement creates more bullshit votes.

These types of endorsements further prove those "crazy" people's conspiracy theories that the US government is so tightly wrapped up in commerce that major corporations actually have kiosks setup in the politician's asses**!

*Incorrect votes because the voter DID seek out education on voting but received wrong information...very similar to being an ignorant voter except I define an ignorant voter as one who does not seek out or gets very little information before they decide on how to vote.

**Of course the corporations have to setup "shop" in the politicians asses...how else are they going to get the our politician's attention while the politician's heads are up their asses!!! 😠

Obama beating Hillary.

YouTube video

At this point, I would like to show people this site: realclearpolitics.com (RCP). They average the polls so there's a far larger sample of voters, and therefore, more accurate.

For instance, while the Quad City Times polls has Obama leading by 9, RCP has them tied, with a sample of 3,803 voters (RCP-Iowa).

And while the Concord Monitor may have Obama up by 1, according to RCP, Clinton is still up by an average of 6%, with a sample of 3,290 voters (RCP-NH).

None of them SHOULD win the nomination,none of them are worthy of it but Clinton will not only win it but she will win the presidency as well which is about the worst thing in the world that could happen to america.Im all for a woman president,but not Hillary.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Im all for a woman president,but not Hillary.

QFT.

I wish there was another option for our first female President.....buuuut, it was unavoidable that our first real female presidential candidate would be more a like a man...makes the transition process easier. 😄

Originally posted by dadudemon
QFT.

I wish there was another option for our first female President.....buuuut, it was unavoidable that our first real female presidential candidate would be more a like a man...makes the transition process easier. 😄

She's like a man now?

"Don't vote for Hillary, she's not hot enough." Certainly logical grounds for dismissal.

Originally posted by Robtard
She's like a man now?

"Don't vote for Hillary, she's not hot enough." Certainly logical grounds for dismissal.

Greeeaat....yup, just great. 🙄

Originally posted by dadudemon
Greeeaat....yup, just great. 🙄

You're the one who said Hillary is "like a man", not I.

Maybe I should have used a 'smilie' to denote the sarcasm, I did post to you afterall, Capt. Catchesonquick.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're the one who said Hillary is "like a man", not I.

Maybe I should have used a 'smilie' to denote the sarcasm, I did post to you afterall, Capt. Catchesonquick.

Wow...just great, great man. 🙄

Originally posted by dadudemon
QFT.

I wish there was another option for our first female President.....buuuut, it was unavoidable that our first real female presidential candidate would be more a like a man...makes the transition process easier. 😄

Even Eleanor Roosevelt didn't wear pantsuits.