• 🛑Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
    Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community! 💪
  • 🔥Check Out Muscle Gelz HEAL® - A Topical Peptide Repair Formula with BPC-157 & TB-500! 🏥

Democrats have a problem..

S

SlimShady

Registered User
Registered
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
469
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
62
IML Gear Cream!
Democrats have a problem. I'm not just talking about well known democrats, I am talking about all democrats (including the ones on this board). I see articles written by liberals, posts written by my friends here, and editorials on TV - they all have one thing in common; They all credit Bush or the conservatives for the victory. "53 Million are Dumb", "Bush Lied", "The Gay Marriage Issue won the election" etc ...

Blah, blah, blah ...

Bush is probably the weakest incumbant president to ever win re-election. The job of president was ripe for the picking in 2004.... and it also was in 2000.

The point is? .. The point is, Al Gore and John Kerry are both sorry excuses for presidential candidates. Bush BARELY beat Al Gore - AL GORE - a walking joke. He invented everything, remember? ... Even in the hey days of Clinton, people considered Gore the weakest link. In the 1996 election, many people had encouraged Clinton to dump Gore. Gore was univerally considered to be nothing more than a useful idiot. Yet come 2000, the democrats expected everyone to gleefully elect him president of the USA.

Yeah, Bush is a shrub. He may not be dumb, but he sure acts like it sometimes. The war is a bit fucked up. Jobs have gone overseas. There is a lot of crap that isn't right. Bush is no Reagan. But the democrats couldn't find any candidates better than John Kerry???? ... Who's fault is that? Did you not see and listen to Theresa Kerry during the campaign? I cannot, in my worst political dreams, think of a bigger first lady time-bomb than this blabbering idiot. Didn't anyone in the democratic political machine bother to check her out before Kerry won the nomination?

Yeah Bush won. He won because the democrats didn't come up with any decent opposition. Personally, I think John Edwards would have stood a better chance vs Bush.

And now the talk is Hillary in 2008. Well guess what? Middle America will never vote for her. I dont care what she's done in NY. If Hillary runs in 2008, stick a fork in the Democrats. It's as if the entire party has been infiltrated by the opposition. Bush himself couldn't have hand picked weaker competition than Al Gore and John Kerry. And Hillary is just as bad.

If you are a Democrat and you're pissed because Bush won, don't be pissed at anyone but your own party leaders.
 
The Democratic party is at its lowest point in its history. Its entirely dis-connected from the average working man/woman. This virilent leftist/Liberal element running it is going to destroy it. To have lost two elections to such a weak opponant is laughable. I suspect theres going to be a purge of the leftist/loudmouth/big city/flagburning/self-serving element in that party. There was a time the party was for the average hardworking, blue collar, church going, working man/woman. Now look at whats its sunk to?

And you think Hillary isnt worried now? Right now she's wishing she'd moved back to the Arkansas trailor park and became the jr senator from Ar-kan-sas. Theres no way shes going to win the south and she knows it now...........Rich
 
I don't feel Gore was that bad. I think he would've pushed technology. Scratch that, he WOULD have pushed technology. That's what we needed.
 
Luke9583 said:
I don't feel Gore was that bad. I think he would've pushed technology. Scratch that, he WOULD have pushed technology. That's what we needed.
Click to expand...
But he said he invented the internet...:hmmm:
 
Don't count gore out of 08. I was listening to a radio show this morning, and that's what they were talking about. Gore was supposedly against the iraq war the entire time, something kerry and hillary can't say.

either way, i don't think anyone would be guliani in 08. he may even put new york into the red column.
 
busyLivin said:
Don't count gore out of 08. I was listening to a radio show this morning, and that's what they were talking about. Gore was supposedly against the iraq war the entire time, something kerry and hillary can't say.
Click to expand...
I think that's another problem that the Democratic party hasn't realized yet - the way they are handling the Iraq War. The Democrats wanted to use the Iraq war against Bush, but they went about it all wrong...

People aren't against the war, people are against LOSING the war. Kerry kept preaching that the war was a mistake... well no shit Sherlock ... but hey, guess what, we are already there now. No one wants to hear you tell us how smart you are and how you wouldn't have started the war in the first place. Hindsight is always 20-20. And don't lie and say it's another Vietnam, because it isn't - it isn't even minor leagues compared to Vietnam... and it's only comparable to Vietnam if we give up before we win.

Just tell us that if elected, you will win the war, pronto, and bring the troops home. Tell us Bush is dragging his feet and not giving the troops enough firepower or armor. Tell us you'll kick ass, take names, and flatten the place if need be, then you'll bring the boys home. Tell us the war is becoming a mistake and if you win, so will we. If not, Bush will continue to screw up and boys will continue to die for nothing..... Most everyone supported the Iraqi War when it began, so most everyone doesn't want to hear Democrats saying "Nah, nah, nah.. told ya so"... Most everyone wants to win the stinking war and get the hell out of there ASAP.

This was so simple, that I couldn't believe the Democrats screwed it up. The Democratic party is so out of touch with middle America that it's a shame. It's also quite scary, because the result is turning this nation into a one-party government.
 
Joining this thread...

Welcome to the New Republic everyone. Been saying it since the day after elections. There is no longer a viable Democratic party - just some die hards who will try and stand in the way of progress and use some weak filibuster maneuvers.

OD
 
Get a grip OD. In case you need reminding Kerry only needed one more major state to win. Your doomsday prophacy regarding liberalism is pure fantasy and completely preposterous.
 
redspy said:
Get a grip OD. In case you need reminding Kerry only needed one more major state to win. Your doomsday prophecy regarding liberalism is pure fantasy and completely preposterous.
Click to expand...
But you forget it was not all just about Kerry. The President won by the biggest popular vote in the history of the country. The same people tossed out on their ear the top democratic leaders (senate leader Daschl, Kerry, Edwards and more) and took out senate seats, house seats and governors. It was a disaster of a train wreck for the Democratic Party. I don't think you realize just how bad it is for them. They are barely afloat after the last election loss. Now they are almost completely gutted and left for dead. Liberalism is pragmatically politically silenced and rendered impotent in this country for the current generation. Unless Kennedy can "get it up" some day without having a heart attack or a liver attack they have zero credibility and no annointed to fall back on.

OD
 
IML Gear Cream!
Stop being a drama queen. If the Democrats lost by a margin of 40%/60% I'd concede there's a serious problem. That simply isn't the case, nor anything near. Your sensationalism might appeal to your Conservative friends but it doesn't have any credence.
 
du510 said:
Hey Red, if ya dont mind me asking, did you vote for Kerry?:O
Click to expand...
Nope. I would have voted for Dean had he been on the ticket.
 
Absolutely serious. I had to vote with my conscience and that wasn't Kerry. He voted for the war and the patriot act. His stance on Israel is no different to Bush (which seriously pisses me off), his environmental platform is weak and the party still relies heavily on corporate campaign financing.
 
Some will say it's a wasted vote or a vote for Bush but why invest your vote for someone not aligned with you? Like I said I would have voted for Dean as I find his agenda very inspirational and refreshing.
 
redspy said:
Some will say it's a wasted vote or a vote for Bush but why invest your vote for someone not aligned with you?
Click to expand...
Im catching a lot of shit, along the lines of "Its a wasted vote, a vote for Kerry". I completely agree.
 
du510 said:
Im catching a lot of shit, along the lines of "Its a wasted vote, a vote for Kerry". I completely agree.
Click to expand...
If you listen to these people we'll be stuck with a two party system forever, I don't believe this is a healthy state for a democracy.
 
redspy said:
If you listen to these people we'll be stuck with a two party system forever, I don't believe this is a healthy state for a democracy.
Click to expand...
To this day, we haven't agreed on politics, but right now, we agree 100%.
 
IML Gear Cream!
du510 said:
To this day, we haven't agreed on politics, but right now, we agree 100%.
Click to expand...
Indeed. And don't forget we share many objectives, we just disagree on policy direction and how to get there. I'm sure we both want a vibrant economy, good schools, a healthy environment, equal opportunity, quality health care etc etc.
 
As I said before if the Libertarian party could get a consistent framework and not be all over the board with Zero morality I would lean that way.

By the way red - drama is fun when the party is in full swing. And right now the Republicans are rock-n-rolling...

OD
 
redspy said:
If you listen to these people we'll be stuck with a two party system forever, I don't believe this is a healthy state for a democracy.
Click to expand...
The problem with having a multi-party system (more than two parties) is that the winner will rarely win with a majority of the vote.

People screamed that Bush had no mandate because he won with a minority vote. They did the same when Clinton won with a minority.... can you imagine the chaos of, say, an election with five or six parties, and the winner only gets 40% of the votes?

It's fun to think about. Neither party represents me and I wish the Libertarians would gain some ground.
 
With the first past the post system other parties will never gain a foothold. Look at the way Ralph Nader was excluded from the presidential debates so the cosy two party can live on. What's needed is some level of power sharing, without this both parties attempt to undo the work of previous administration and overall progress is impeded.

Not that England is a bastion of democracy but they have a three party system with power allocatyed across the parliament. The Green Party also has some power at the local level.
 
Really now. Was Nader excluded, or did he not have enough support to BE on the ballot? I can only speak for my state, but he didn't have enough sigs to be on the ballot. I suspect other states were similar.
 
You would be right too Stick. This time a vote for Ralph did not hurt those that voted against Bush so it did not really mater.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top