How can Secretary Clinton be such a heavy favorite?
Quote: AZDuffmanLiberals need to quit dragging out the social issues and talk about what America cares about.
Based on all the rainbow tinted profile pics that are still on my Facebook feed, I'd say America cares about social issues.
Liberals "need" to quite dragging out the social issues. -No we don't. Liberals win on the social issues. We can drag them out all we want to highlight the bigotry of the candidates on the right.
Quote: ams288Based on all the rainbow tinted profile pics that are still on my Facebook feed, I'd say America cares about social issues.
Liberals "need" to quite dragging out the social issues. -No we don't. Liberals win on the social issues. We can drag them out all we want to highlight the bigotry of the candidates on the right.
Again because getting handouts and playing the victim beats talking about debt everyday. Because in the liberal mind everyone deserves to be happy I even if they didn't earn it.
Quote: ams288Based on all the rainbow tinted profile pics that are still on my Facebook feed, I'd say America cares about social issues.
You need to remember the story of how liberals didn't see how McGovern lost so big because everyone they knew voted for him. My guess is most of your feed is liberal to begun with. The reality is no matter the gay marriage approval numbers, it is mostly the homophile population that cared about it.
Quote:Liberals "need" to quite dragging out the social issues. -No we don't. Liberals win on the social issues. We can drag them out all we want to highlight the bigotry of the candidates on the right.
Bigot: noun, a person who does not agree with a liberal.
Quote: AZDuffman
Bigot: noun, a person who does not agree with a liberal.
If that's not in the dictionary, it should be.
Quote: TwirdmanWhile that may sadly work because people are swayed by the optics of an illegal immigrant commiting a violent crime and feel something needs to be done the fact of the matter is illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes and go to prison than their natural born peers. http://reason.com/archives/2014/09/07/criminal-immigrants or http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/anecdotes-evidence-setting-record-straight-immigrants-and-crime-0 . Foreign born people are significantly less likely to be in prison then natural born citizens and deportation doesn't explain the discrepancy. You are free to trot out rhetoric about how all illegal immigrants are violent thugs and rapist, but you should know you will not be borne out with facts.
First of all, illegal immigrants have committed a crime by being here in the first place. Second, for a party that says they want to "make work pay" and all that, why would they encourage millions of low skill workers to come and compete with low skill Americans? No other nation on earth does this. Also, nobody said "all illegal immigrants are rapists." What is being said is why do we want to allow a larger population of low skill people in and keep taxing our public services? Why are we allowing an open border with our number one exporter of illegal drugs? Why on earth do we give handouts to people here illegally?
Go to Mexico. Get a job without a work permit. See what happens. I'll look for you on "Locked Up Abroad" when it hits Netflix.
Quote: AZDuffmanBigot: noun, a person who does not agree with a liberal.
On this issue, absolutely.
Many young voters (dem or republican) are instantly turned off by a candidate if they are anti-equality and pro-bigotry. It is an important issue to them. I have no problem with liberals "dragging out" the social issues. The next president will get to appoint a few Supreme Court nominees. Where they stand on social issues is a HUGE deal in that regard. So no, we don't "need to quit dragging out the social issues."
Quote: TwirdmanWhile that may sadly work because people are swayed by the optics of an illegal immigrant commiting a violent crime and feel something needs to be done the fact of the matter is illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes and go to prison than their natural born peers. http://reason.com/archives/2014/09/07/criminal-immigrants or http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/anecdotes-evidence-setting-record-straight-immigrants-and-crime-0 . Foreign born people are significantly less likely to be in prison then natural born citizens and deportation doesn't explain the discrepancy. You are free to trot out rhetoric about how all illegal immigrants are violent thugs and rapist, but you should know you will not be borne out with facts.
MOST illegal aliens come here and try their best to fit into to our society so that we can ignore the fact that they have already violated the law. Every illegal alien who was not brought here against their will has done something wrong. I understand your premise, that a higher percentage of natural born folks commit crimes than illegal aliens, but that ignores the fact that exactly ZERO crimes would be committed here by illegal aliens if they weren't here in the first place.
The recent murder in San Francisco would not have happened if San Francisco had handed that illegal alien over to ICE or whoever; instead, they are a "sanctuary" for illegals and they played "catch and release". It turned out to be deadly for one citizen. Now the mayor and other council folks don't want to talk about their policy.
Quote: NokTangSo, explain gay divorce to us. (off topic allowed by the OP)
$$$$$ for aceofspades
Quote: BozAgain because getting handouts and playing the victim beats talking about debt everyday. Because in the liberal mind everyone deserves to be happy I even if they didn't earn it.
I used to think our own happiness was determined mostly by the choices we made. Then people started telling me we could never be happy because of the choices George Bush, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton were making. If it's between the liberal mind of deserving to be happy or being unhappy because of the things other people do, I'll have to take the liberal side
Quote: AussieWhy is she still referred to as "Secretary Clinton" when she ceased being secretary a few years ago?
The American social custom is to address a dignitary by their highest elected or appointed position, unless they're serving in a different current job with its own title. In her case, Secretary of State is considered to be higher than Senator, and both outrank Mrs., so the referent for now is "Secretary". Should she become President, she will be addressed as such (after leaving, sometimes with the word "Former" preceding) for the rest of her life, and not "Secretary". Chances are she will always be referred to with her full name, as there will have been 2 President Clintons in that event.
Quote: beachbumbabsShould she become President, she will be addressed as such
Yes, and if she becomes an honorary colonel,
like Colonel Sanders, she could be called
colonel for the rest of her life. That's more
likely to happen than president.
Quote: ams288On this issue, absolutely.
Many young voters (dem or republican) are instantly turned off by a candidate if they are anti-equality and pro-bigotry. It is an important issue to them. I have no problem with liberals "dragging out" the social issues. The next president will get to appoint a few Supreme Court nominees. Where they stand on social issues is a HUGE deal in that regard. So no, we don't "need to quit dragging out the social issues."
What is important is where a SCOTUS justice stands on the Constitution, not on social issues. Thus is an example of why it is so dangerous to have a liberal POTUS, they do not understand this concept and think SOTUS is a tool to implement policy.
Quote: beachbumbabsThe American social custom is to address a dignitary by their highest elected or appointed position, unless they're serving in a different current job with its own title. In her case, Secretary of State is considered to be higher than Senator, and both outrank Mrs., so the referent for now is "Secretary".
I am with you to this point...
Quote: beachbumbabsShould she become President, she will be addressed as such (after leaving, sometimes with the word "Former" preceding) for the rest of her life, and not "Secretary". Chances are she will always be referred to with her full name, as there will have been 2 President Clintons in that event.
That point seems to be debatable. The continued use of "President" (as in "President Clinton") is not exactly how everyone describes proper usage. Since there is only one "President of the United States", it has been customary for the title they are referred to revert back to their highest former (and non-singular, by some accounts) title.
President Obama would be Senator Obama
President Bush, Governor Bush
President Clinton, Governor Clinton
President Bush 41, Ambassador Bush ("Regarding Bush 41, in the rules of protocol Ambassador is a big deal and outranks Congressman or agency director. Ironically, GHW Bush has the same title as Carol Mosley Braun, Eleanor Roosevelt or Adlai Stevenson, all also better known for things other than ambassadorial posts. Recall that Braun was called Ambassador Braun rather than Senator Braun in the debates" http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2340220)
" Here's the WHY behind the correct form. This is the traditional approach for any office of which there is only one office-holder at a time. So, with officials such as mayors, governors or presidents ... only the current office holder is addressed as Mr. Mayor, Governor, or Mr. President ... formers are not addressed that way.
That's not to say some reporter might not call a former mayor Mayor Smith or a former president President (Surname). But doing so is incorrect and confusing to the public. The former office holder is no longer due the precedence and courtesies we extend to the current office holder. He or she speaks with the authority of a private citizen. We honor former office holder's service, but the 'form of address' -- which acknowledges the responsibilities and duties of office -- belongs only to current office holder.
With offices of which are many office-holders at a time ... senators, admirals, judges, etc. addressing 'formers' with their former honorific not disrespectful to a singular current office holder.
To explain the correct form I would say "using the title of a former position is flattering to the former official and he or she may not correct you, but is not respectful to the current office holder. There's only one "(name of the office)" at a time."
-- Robert Hickey
http://www.formsofaddress.info/former.html#FO003
It appears that the titles Governor and Mayor may not get the same "one office holder" treatment as the title of President does in all cases; otherwise no one would say so many former Presidents should be addressed as "Governor". There is not one Mayor or Governor, there are many. There is only one President and one Vice President of the United States. Perhaps that is why the former titles are rather murky in usage.
The press is one of the main reasons we here "President ___________" so often...it is a much quicker form than formerly more proper usage. Usage changes; one day all of the old traditions may be gone.
That would be sad.
Quote: RonCI am with you to this point...
That point seems to be debatable. The continued use of "President" (as in "President Clinton") is not exactly how everyone describes proper usage. Since there is only one "President of the United States", it has been customary for the title they are referred to revert back to their highest former (and non-singular, by some accounts) title.
President Obama would be Senator Obama
President Bush, Governor Bush
President Clinton, Governor Clinton
President Bush 41, Ambassador Bush ("Regarding Bush 41, in the rules of protocol Ambassador is a big deal and outranks Congressman or agency director. Ironically, GHW Bush has the same title as Carol Mosley Braun, Eleanor Roosevelt or Adlai Stevenson, all also better known for things other than ambassadorial posts. Recall that Braun was called Ambassador Braun rather than Senator Braun in the debates" http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2340220)
" Here's the WHY behind the correct form. This is the traditional approach for any office of which there is only one office-holder at a time. So, with officials such as mayors, governors or presidents ... only the current office holder is addressed as Mr. Mayor, Governor, or Mr. President ... formers are not addressed that way.
That's not to say some reporter might not call a former mayor Mayor Smith or a former president President (Surname). But doing so is incorrect and confusing to the public. The former office holder is no longer due the precedence and courtesies we extend to the current office holder. He or she speaks with the authority of a private citizen. We honor former office holder's service, but the 'form of address' -- which acknowledges the responsibilities and duties of office -- belongs only to current office holder.
With offices of which are many office-holders at a time ... senators, admirals, judges, etc. addressing 'formers' with their former honorific not disrespectful to a singular current office holder.
To explain the correct form I would say "using the title of a former position is flattering to the former official and he or she may not correct you, but is not respectful to the current office holder. There's only one "(name of the office)" at a time."
-- Robert Hickey
http://www.formsofaddress.info/former.html#FO003
It appears that the titles Governor and Mayor may not get the same "one office holder" treatment as the title of President does in all cases; otherwise no one would say so many former Presidents should be addressed as "Governor". There is not one Mayor or Governor, there are many. There is only one President and one Vice President of the United States. Perhaps that is why the former titles are rather murky in usage.
The press is one of the main reasons we here "President ___________" so often...it is a much quicker form than formerly more proper usage. Usage changes; one day all of the old traditions may be gone.
That would be sad.
I appreciate that you went to the trouble of looking up the exact etiquette of the honorifics. I was explaining common and current practices in the media and formal introductions these days, as you noted. I went to a thing with Bill Clinton in 2012, for example, and the podium introduced him as "President Bill Clinton" without the "Former" or as "Governor" or any more correct address according to your sources (which I don't doubt are correct).
Quote: RonCI am with you to this point...
That point seems to be debatable. The continued use of "President" (as in "President Clinton") is not exactly how everyone describes proper usage. Since there is only one "President of the United States", it has been customary for the title they are referred to revert back to their highest former (and non-singular, by some accounts) title.
I have to wonder what the "official" way would be for Eisenhower? Once you are "General of the Army" you can't leave the Army. He was actually allowed to suspend his commission while POTUS, but they got it back. This is a weird thing for five-stars only.
Quote: AZDuffmanI have to wonder what the "official" way would be for Eisenhower? Once you are "General of the Army" you can't leave the Army. He was actually allowed to suspend his commission while POTUS, but they got it back. This is a weird thing for five-stars only.
Here is a snippet that may describe it:
"Here's what is the correct formula as it appears in my book (assuming they didn't have an honorific other than Mr./Ms. to go back to ... as General Dwight D. Eisenhower did.)"
http://www.formsofaddress.info/FOA_president_US_former.html
Since "General" is a rank that many people have, I think that is correct.
Quote: beachbumbabsI appreciate that you went to the trouble of looking up the exact etiquette of the honorifics. I was explaining common and current practices in the media and formal introductions these days, as you noted. I went to a thing with Bill Clinton in 2012, for example, and the podium introduced him as "President Bill Clinton" without the "Former" or as "Governor" or any more correct address according to your sources (which I don't doubt are correct).
I do believe that the "lose" usage that the media and many of us fall into is not necessarily a good thing. I have probably referred to a former President as President, which is incorrect and I will try to keep from doing it in the future. I think a certain amount of respect for the office itself is appropriate and there is only one President at a time.
I don't think any President has a perfect record at it, but keeping the basic decorum of the office by wearing a coat and tie at most times in the office is important. Why? It demonstrates visually that you acknowledge the importance and seriousness of the job. Have a lot of them failed to do it or kicked back in their chair and put their feet up? Of course; we haven't had the perfect President yet. They work long days and are really never off (no matter how much we gripe about the long vacations of one of them or the other).
Quote: RonCHere is a snippet that may describe it:
"Here's what is the correct formula as it appears in my book (assuming they didn't have an honorific other than Mr./Ms. to go back to ... as General Dwight D. Eisenhower did.)"
http://www.formsofaddress.info/FOA_president_US_former.html
Since "General" is a rank that many people have, I think that is correct.
There is a little more to it, though. Suppose a POTUS goes back to Congress, which has happened once IIRC. Do they get the "lower" title even though it is more current? Ike went back to being a general. It was emeritus, but once you get that job you have it. At least I read that way back when I was at the military bank. Not sure if Grant fell under this or just a 5-Star.
Quote: RonCI do believe that the "lose" usage that the media and many of us fall into is not necessarily a good thing. I have probably referred to a former President as President, which is incorrect and I will try to keep from doing it in the future. I think a certain amount of respect for the office itself is appropriate and there is only one President at a time.
Unless the current President is in the room(area), I would refer to any of the ex's as "President _______, if I was greeting them in person. Unless told specifically how to address them, that's what I would do.
Assuming I was not in any official capacity myself, I'm just a citizen and just follow what I normally would consider a respectful manner. Means nothing more than that, I think. I'll use a respectful address to a janitor, instead of "Hey you." whether they get that from everyone else or not. Same goes for everyone, on first meeting.
All of them are usually older and I usually go for a respectful handle. Unless of course, I'm there to officially throw tomatoes at them -- then maybe not.
What are they gonna do, shoot me, if I am too formal?
(Besides my mama would slap me for going around acting casual)
Quote: rxwineUnless the current President is in the room(area), I would refer to any of the ex's as "President _______, if I was greeting them in person. Unless told specifically how to address them, that's what I would do.
Assuming I was not in any official capacity myself, I'm just a citizen and just follow what I normally would consider a respectful manner. Means nothing more than that, I think. I'll use a respectful address to a janitor, instead of "Hey you." whether they get that from everyone else or not. Same goes for everyone, on first meeting.
All of them are usually older and I usually go for a respectful handle. Unless of course, I'm there to officially throw tomatoes at them -- then maybe not.
What are they gonna do, shoot me, if I am too formal?
(Besides my mama would slap me for going around acting casual)
I'd rather make an error on the side of being too formal than too casual...
EVERYONE, except children, is "Sir" or "Ma'am" to me when we first meet. Unless the first meeting I have requires me to say "Your Honor"...
Quote: AZDuffmanWhat is important is where a SCOTUS justice stands on the Constitution, not on social issues. Thus is an example of why it is so dangerous to have a liberal POTUS, they do not understand this concept and think SOTUS is a tool to implement policy.
Gimme a break. Republican Presidents appoint right wing judges who use their position to implement policy all the time.
See that Jon Stewart clip I posted a week or so ago where Scalia said because Congress was perpetually renewing it, the only way to ever change the Voting Rights Act was if the Supreme Court did it. And then they went ahead and gutted it. Seems like a pretty big policy implementation to me.
WOW! John Stewart is your news source. Sad just sad. Our nation is doomed.Quote: ams288Gimme a break. Republican Presidents appoint right wing judges who use their position to implement policy all the time.
See that Jon Stewart clip I posted a week or so ago where Scalia said because Congress was perpetually renewing it, the only way to ever change the Voting Rights Act was if the Supreme Court did it. And then they went ahead and gutted it. Seems like a pretty big policy implementation to me.
Quote: pewWOW! John Stewart is your news source. Sad just sad. Our nation is doomed.
Yes, our nation is doomed because a Daily Show video clip I posted contained a pertinent soundbite of Scalia making a fool of himself and contradicting AZDuffman's point about only liberal justices implementing policy.
Grow up.
Quote: ams288Yes, our nation is doomed because a Daily Show video clip I posted contained a pertinent soundbite of Scalia making a fool of himself and contradicting AZDuffman's point about only liberal justices implementing policy.
Grow up.
Conservatives are just jealous because no right-wing equivalent of The Daily Show has popped up and become a big hit. Yes, Fox News does Jon Stewart a big favor by broadcasting hours of hilarious BS every day, but there is plenty of liberal BS that could be mined for comedy. They would simply have to find an entertaining conservative with a good sense of humor...
Quote: jml24Conservatives are just jealous because no right-wing equivalent of The Daily Show has popped up and become a big hit. Yes, Fox News does Jon Stewart a big favor by broadcasting hours of hilarious BS every day, but there is plenty of liberal BS that could be mined for comedy. They would simply have to find an entertaining conservative with a good sense of humor...
They've tried and failed miserably.
Remember the Half Hour News Hour "comedy" show that aired on Fox News?
Yeah, no one else does either...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1/2_Hour_News_Hour
Quote: ams288Gimme a break. Republican Presidents appoint right wing judges who use their position to implement policy all the time.
If you mean the policy of implementing the Constitution as it was written and not as a "living, breathing" thing then yes, I suppose so.
Quote: pewWOW! John Stewart is your news source. Sad just sad. Our nation is doomed.
Foxnews viewers are just so serious and really pissed off at the state of affairs in this country.
They are not happy going into the weekend the flag coming down, gay marriage and Trump sucking the oxygen out of the republican race.
John Stewart viewers laugh at the news. Sure things are not perfect but we can still laugh.
We are going into the weekend with high spirits and happy.
I'd rather be happy and laugh , but that's just me :-)
Enjoy life and laugh.
Vegas in 2 weeks baby, nice vacation after an exhausting weekend in Chicago seeing the Grateful Dead :-)
Quote: MoosetonDoes anyone here truly believe our country is on the 'right track' so to say? If I was asked I'd say we are on the 'wrong track' and headed for a mess due to liberal policies. But what do I know? I'm just a Fox News viewer pulling for Trump. I love the fact he doesn't really filter what he says! The truth hurts sometimes but this guy does pin the tail on the donkey. Way more entertaining and truthful (seemingly) than ole Hill.
I don't think there is any track, right or wrong to be on. The reality is the country stumbles forward and those in power try to stay in power while making a half hearted attempt to move the country forward in a positive way regardless if Liberal or Conservative.
Politicians never ever speak their mind. They say whatever they think their voters want to hear.
Of course Trump is not a typical politician, he actually says whats on his mid. Very refreshing I have to admit.
I cant wait to see him in the debates, will have the popcorn out.
I would vote Ole Hill over Trump but there is no doubt Trump is way way way more entertaining and truthful to a certain extant.
Ole Hill, a politician with her eyes on the prize.
Trump, the ultimate attention whore getting all the attention and having the time of his life.
Quote: terapined
One of your better posts ^
Edit: meant as a compliment to your last post
Quote: terapinedFoxnews viewers are just so serious and really pissed off at the state of affairs in this country.
They are not happy going into the weekend the flag coming down, gay marriage and Trump sucking the oxygen out of the republican race.
John Stewart viewers laugh at the news. Sure things are not perfect but we can still laugh.
We are going into the weekend with high spirits and happy.
I'd rather be happy and laugh , but that's just me :-)
Enjoy life and laugh.
Vegas in 2 weeks baby, nice vacation after an exhausting weekend in Chicago seeing the Grateful Dead :-)
I wish you would have told me you were gonna be in town for the Dead. While I differ on you with many of my viewpoints. I was around that area for a White Sox game last weeked, I would have bought you a beer
Quote: Gabes22I wish you would have told me you were gonna be in town for the Dead. While I differ on you with many of my viewpoints. I was around that area for a White Sox game last weeked, I would have bought you a beer
Sorry I missed you.
You may enjoy this being a resident.
An out of towners Chicago expereience
Stayed by Midway, took the Orange line back and forth.
Unusual mass transit pay system. Cheapest way to travel was to buy debit card, throw some money plus 5 dollar fee , register and you get the 5 back on the card. We were hesitant but the CTA guy convinced us to spend the extra 5. He said go on the internet, enter the card number and you get the 5 back instantly. talked us into it. Sounded easy. Later the day, registered the card to get my 5 back, torture, lots of entries, too many, have to set up an account, then failed, android doesn't quite work. Finally did the process at the hotel computer to get our 5 back.
Closest subway stop to Soldier field is the longest walk I have ever taken in my life from a mass transit stop to a major venue. Being a deadhead and having seen them all over the country, I have been to a ton of different venues. The long walk was actually fun being among thousands of deadhead, but it was a real long walk.
Sunday our last day, ate a restaurant you may be familiar with. Millers Pub on Wabash. We stayed away from any chain all weekend, always ate at a unique Chicago place. We walked buy Millers, we liked what we saw, old Chicago and packed. Waited 30 min for a table. Being the last Grateful Dead show, ordered the most expensive item, surf and turf 32 bucks. Day before, we got off at the Washington Library stop to walk around, just prior to the stop, noticed a rooftop restaurant, had lunch there :-)
I went in with low expectations music wise. Seen them over 100 times. They blew me away, killer shows. Fri nite 7/3 was the bomb, I thought Chicago was going to catch on fire again, it was that hot :-)
Quote: terapinedSeen them over 100 times.
Wow, that explains a lot. Say no
more..
Is the "daily show" actually a news show? I'm under the impression that Stuart is a comedian regardless of his political views. Doesn't he skewer all sides of the political spectrum? And what about mass killings, wars, plane crashes and such. That's news, but I don,t think it's stuff to laugh about.Quote: terapinedFoxnews viewers are just so serious and really pissed off at the state of affairs in this country.
They are not happy going into the weekend the flag coming down, gay marriage and Trump sucking the oxygen out of the republican race.
John Stewart viewers laugh at the news. Sure things are not perfect but we can still laugh.
We are going into the weekend with high spirits and happy.
I'd rather be happy and laugh , but that's just me :-)
Enjoy life and laugh.
Vegas in 2 weeks baby, nice vacation after an exhausting weekend in Chicago seeing the Grateful Dead :-)
Quote: terapinedFoxnews viewers are just so serious and really pissed off at the state of affairs in this country.
They are not happy going into the weekend the flag coming down, gay marriage and Trump sucking the oxygen out of the republican race.
John Stewart viewers laugh at the news. Sure things are not perfect but we can still laugh.
We are going into the weekend with high spirits and happy.
I'd rather be happy and laugh , but that's just me :-)
Enjoy life and laugh.
Hopefully you and Leibowitz (Stewart) can keep laughing through Citizens United, the unrestricted sales of tens of millions more firearms including assault weapons this year alone and the jailing and executions of thousands of "LGBT" throughout the world. Keep smiling.
Oh and we have breaking news on Trayvon..
He's still dead!
Keep smiling.
Quote: EvenBobWow, that explains a lot. Say no
more..
Ann Coulter has seen them over 60 times, explain that one. Ann Coulter is a deadhead :-)
Quote: bobsimsHopefully you and Leibowitz (Stewart) can keep laughing through Citizens United, the unrestricted sales of tens of millions more firearms including assault weapons this year alone and the jailing and executions of thousands of "LGBT" throughout the world. Keep smiling.
Oh and we have breaking news on Trayvon..
He's still dead!
Keep smiling.
I got one vote, l exercize it every 2 years.
There is only so much l can do. Might as well laugh and enjoy life.
Interesting article. Not that anyone needs to explain that most white males hate Hillary. Looks like her camp is in denial for the reasons. "She's a woman" is their reasoning, yet the same males wold probably like Sarah Palin or Carly Fiorina. Goes on to mention that the Democrat Party in general has a white voter problem. Union workers and staunch liberals are pretty much the only white guys who like her, and the union guys like the party, not her.
Democrats threw whites and white males specifically overboard around 2000. They clearly think that by favoring illegal immigration they will win the day for the future. Meantime, Hillary will probably face the reality that despite the abuse he takes at every turn, the white male voter still matters. Time will tell.
Quote: Gabes22While I don't have a party affiliation. I am of the mind that that a Republican sucks and a Democrat blows, but having driven around this country, and going to any major American city that has had Democratic leadership for generations like Chicago, Philly, DC, Baltimore, Boston, Detroit, Milwaukee, Houston, LA, New Orleans, they are unmitigated crapholes, and I tend to vote more Republican, when given the opportunity rather than Democratic as a result of that
Every major city on the planet has problems.
I don't find major American cities unmitigated crapholes.
To the contrary, being a deadhead, I've had the chance to visit many of these cites and had a great time.
I recommend visiting all the below cities.
Chicago - Just got back. Had a great time. Felt safe. reasonable train fare, train not crowded. Walked all over downtown from the hancock tower to Soldier Field. Had a great time.
Philly - Saw tons of shows at the Spectrum, Tower Theater and Penns Landing. Felt save. Roads and bridges fine. Went to Drexel, did a ton of walking in Philly, Had a lot good times in Philly.
DC - has some rough neighborhoods, what city does not. My all time favorite bicycle ride is to take the bike on the Metro, get off near the white house, ride over to Georgetown, ride the tow path us to Bethesda, ride over to Rock Creek park, ride south back to Georgetown. Everything well maintained, beautiful ride.
Baltimore - Spent many many many night in Fells Point just having fun. Love Baltimore.
Boston - Walked the entire freedom trail. Its a real long walk all through Boston. Again loved it. Always felt safe.
I've walked all over Manhatten, San Francisco and a bunch of other cities. Not crap holes.
Quote: BozJust another "safe" weekend in Chicago.
Got me :-)
Yes, I heard it was a pretty violent bloody weekend there.
On the flip side.
Honestly, I felt perfectly safe all weekend and had a blast.
Totally unarmed. Walked all over downtown. I honestly felt totally safe walking the streets.
Quote: terapinedI honestly felt totally safe walking the streets.
Most people feel safe until they have a
bad experience. It's called naivete.
Quote: EvenBobMost people feel safe until they have a
bad experience. It's called naivete.
I've had a couple of those 'naïveté' moments in urban areas.
So far, though I was taken by surprise,
I was the party that walked (ran) away.
The other party didn't.
Quote: Gabes22I live in the Chicago area but you could not pay me to live in the city.
Hell, 25 years ago when I had the cab co,
I was warned numerous times about Chicago.
There were parts of the freeway you did not
want to have a break down on. They would
rob you and strip your car long before any
help arrived. If you think you're really safe
anywhere in Chicago, it's an illusion.
Quote: AZDuffmanHillary Clinton's White Male Voter Problem
Interesting article. Not that anyone needs to explain that most white males hate Hillary. Looks like her camp is in denial for the reasons. "She's a woman" is their reasoning, yet the same males wold probably like Sarah Palin or Carly Fiorina. Goes on to mention that the Democrat Party in general has a white voter problem. Union workers and staunch liberals are pretty much the only white guys who like her, and the union guys like the party, not her.
Democrats threw whites and white males specifically overboard around 2000. They clearly think that by favoring illegal immigration they will win the day for the future. Meantime, Hillary will probably face the reality that despite the abuse he takes at every turn, the white male voter still matters. Time will tell.
The white male voter hasn't mattered in the last two elections, no reason to think they will this time around. It's not like they're a growing portion of the electorate.
I watched part of his announcement speech live......
Yikes.
Some members here seem to think he could win. Keep drinking that Kool Aid. Afterwards, a cable news commentator called him a "black hole of charisma." I think that pretty much sums him up.
