• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Hillary or Condy?

Who would you vote for in 2008

  • Hillary

    Votes: 11 22.9%
  • Condy

    Votes: 20 41.7%
  • Another Democrat or Republican

    Votes: 10 20.8%
  • Independent/Write-in

    Votes: 7 14.6%

  • Total voters
    48
superskippy said:
Look's like Condy is the more favored Canidate of the Forums.

Oh well, for sure she's going to win then. :roll:

She'll never run. She has never held an elected office. There is no way the Republican Party would let her run.
 
Kelzie said:
Oh well, for sure she's going to win then. :roll:

She'll never run. She has never held an elected office. There is no way the Republican Party would let her run.

Never say never. Remember Hillary had never run for or held an elected office either until she ran for Moynihan's seat in New York. That was a pretty ambitious first outing I think. (That is, she had never held elective office unless you count her presidency. :smile: )
 
AlbqOwl said:
To quote some Arkansas relatives: "Hillary ran in New York instead of Arkansas is she was just "too important" and it would just be too embarrassing to be a senator from Arkansas even though we put her and Bill on the map. Even us Arkansas hayseeds, hicks, and hillbillies are smart enough to see that." Needless to say, Hillary probably won't be getting Arkansas's vote if she runs for national office.

Wow. Obviously a tremendously relevant opinion there. Some relatives? Which ones?

Tell me, if what Hillary has done is so terrible, then why is it allowed? Why do both sides obviously take advantage of it? Do you guys really care about this issue that much? Would you respect Hillary more if she were a Senator from Arkansas? I think not.

This thread is starting to fill up with a lot of hot air....
 
Originally posted by Pacridge:
Maybe I haven't had enough coffee this morning? I agree with Teacher. Not only do I seem to agree with him, I somehow seem to understand what he's saying. This isn't the "9-11 was an inside job" thread is it?

Appears we didn't learn anything from 9-11, why would we learn anything from this? Hey, maybe instead of just having storms categorized from 1 to 5 we can get a committee together to assign colors to go with those numbers.

Is it just me or is September just not our month?
This just in:

Pacridge understands teacher, film at eleven!
 
To MM: My relatives (in laws actually) are as entitled to their opinions as you are yours. And yes, I would have more respect for Hillary had she run for an Arkansas Senate seat. I don't fault her for running for the seat in New York and the law definitely did allow that. But 'no fault' and commendable are not necessarily the same thing.
 
She'll never run. She has never held an elected office. There is no way the Republican Party would let her run.

Yep never say never. On the other hand, even though I think she is a better candidate then hillary I think she would never be elected becasue of the everlasting prejeduceness of color. Its really a sad thing. :(
 
SKILMATIC said:
Yep never say never. On the other hand, even though I think she is a better candidate then hillary I think she would never be elected becasue of the everlasting prejeduceness of color. Its really a sad thing. :(

Never. Never never never never. It can't happen. You think state senator is ambitious? We're talking the president of the most powerful country in the world. It would be irresponsible for her to run, and quite frankly irresponsible for someone to vote for her. She's not qualified.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Yep never say never. On the other hand, even though I think she is a better candidate then hillary I think she would never be elected becasue of the everlasting prejeduceness of color. Its really a sad thing. :(
\

I think there is no prejudice among most Republicans who vote, and I think the GOP is more than willing to be the first party to nominate and elect a black president. She (Condi) would be horribly attacked by some other minorities who can't stand one of 'their own' being conservative--in fact they've already done unimaginable nasty hatchet jobs on her--but she's a tough, smart, savvy lady and she took it all in style--way more intelligent than the average bear.

I'm pretty sure Colin Powell would have easily won the nomination had he run in 2000. If Condi did decide to run, I think she would run a dynamite and very credible campaign. If her opponent is Hillary, I think she would have a shot at winning. Hillary is much more vulnerable with negatives than Condi is.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I think there is no prejudice among most Republicans who vote, and I think the GOP is more than willing to be the first party to nominate and elect a black president.

Why would they start now? No, I'm not saying Republicans are prejudiced, they're just not rushing to promote minority candidates to represent them.

Of 3,643 Republicans serving in the state legislatures, only 44 are minorities.
In the Congress, with 274 of the 535 elected senators and representatives Republican, only five are minorities - three Cuban Americans from Florida, a Mexican American from Texas and a Native American senator originally elected as a Democrat.

AlbqOwl said:
I'm pretty sure Colin Powell would have easily won the nomination had he run in 2000.

I could see myself voting for Powell, depending on the circumstances.
 
BWG said:
Why would they start now? No, I'm not saying Republicans are prejudiced, they're just not rushing to promote minority candidates to represent them.

Of 3,643 Republicans serving in the state legislatures, only 44 are minorities.
In the Congress, with 274 of the 535 elected senators and representatives Republican, only five are minorities - three Cuban Americans from Florida, a Mexican American from Texas and a Native American senator originally elected as a Democrat.

There is a steadily increasing number of minorities among the GOP ranks, but unfortunately not enough to yet steel themselves against the horrendous abuse they take from some sectors of the Democrat party and other minorities if they come out as a conservative Republican. The GOP is making a genuine effort to attract more minorities to their side of the aisle and I think over the next decade the pendulum will be moving. The key will be to finally demonstrate that it is actually conservative policies who is overall in the best interest of minorities as well as all other Americans.

I think electing a smart, savvy, capable black woman as president of the United States might demonstrate the possibilities.
 
The devil will pass out icewater before a black woman who is in favor of Affirmative Action, and who also is obviously a lesbian, will ever win the Republican Nomination for President of the United States.

The GOP's little pup tent aint quite big enough for that one.
 
Last edited:
I think there is no prejudice among most Republicans who vote, and I think the GOP is more than willing to be the first party to nominate and elect a black president. She (Condi) would be horribly attacked by some other minorities who can't stand one of 'their own' being conservative--in fact they've already done unimaginable nasty hatchet jobs on her--but she's a tough, smart, savvy lady and she took it all in style--way more intelligent than the average bear.

I'm pretty sure Colin Powell would have easily won the nomination had he run in 2000. If Condi did decide to run, I think she would run a dynamite and very credible campaign. If her opponent is Hillary, I think she would have a shot at winning. Hillary is much more vulnerable with negatives than Condi is.

Bingo:2wave:

You got it.
 
AlbqOwl said:
There is a steadily increasing number of minorities among the GOP ranks
Too bad there aren't any facts to support this statement. The FACT is that of all the groups who support Democrats Blacks are the most loyal and the largest percentage within any single group.

There's not one single Republican Black American in Congress, none, zero, zilch. This is "steadily increasing numbers"? I think not.

I know a number that is steadily increasing! It's the amound of Americans of all races who believe that Bush is a failure as President. That number has been "steadily" increasing for quite some time now.
 
There's not one single Republican Black American in Congress, none, zero, zilch. This is "steadily increasing numbers"? I think not.

Yeah and they are stupid for it too. :lol:

They vote for the party who instigated and wanted to keep segregation. Yeah sounds like they are REAL GENIOUSES. :doh

If I am not mistaken I beleive wallace was a moderate deomcrat? Or mabe I am wrong.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Yep never say never. On the other hand, even though I think she is a better candidate then hillary I think she would never be elected becasue of the everlasting prejeduceness of color. Its really a sad thing. :(

O man, SKILMATIC I actually agree with you for once.(except for the little fact that Condi is a better candidate than Hilary):smile:
 
SKILMATIC said:
Yeah and they are stupid for it too. :lol:

They vote for the party who instigated and wanted to keep segregation. Yeah sounds like they are REAL GENIOUSES. :doh

If I am not mistaken I beleive wallace was a moderate deomcrat? Or mabe I am wrong.


Hahahahaha! Dude, you spelled "Genius" wrong. That wasn't very smarte nor was it wiese.
 
Last edited:
AlbqOwl said:
To MM: My relatives (in laws actually) are as entitled to their opinions as you are yours. And yes, I would have more respect for Hillary had she run for an Arkansas Senate seat. I don't fault her for running for the seat in New York and the law definitely did allow that. But 'no fault' and commendable are not necessarily the same thing.

I am not saying that their opinions are less relevant than mine. I'm not saying that at all. Only that it sounded as if you were using their opinion to make a blanket statement about the feelings of Arkansas residents in general.

And I didn't realize it was your own relatives you were referring to.

What exactly is not commendable about it? This I don't understand, 'cause truthfully, even though I brought it up, I don't object in any fundamental way to the Republican Party bringing an outsider in to run in Illinois or here in Florida or anywhere for that matter. I don't understand how exactly it is indicative of dishonesty or any other unscrupulous behavior outside of normal partisan competitiveness. This is America, not Europe. We all speak the same language, we're all Americans. There is no reason to believe that someone from Texas would be unable to competently represent the state of Florida, etc., etc. Perhaps that is why the law is written to allow the people to decide who is best to represent them regardless of where they come from. After all, you don't even have to have been born in America at all to hold a seat in our House or Senate.

I for one would love to have Hillary represent my state in the Senate. Big surprise, I know....
 
Condy - in a heart beat. I can't wait for the first viable female & African-American candidate to be a Republican
:cool:
 
Hahahahaha! Dude, you spelled "Genius" wrong. That wasn't very smarte nor was it wiese.

Lol I was typing fast. :lol: :2wave:
 
mixedmedia said:
I am not saying that their opinions are less relevant than mine. I'm not saying that at all. Only that it sounded as if you were using their opinion to make a blanket statement about the feelings of Arkansas residents in general.

And I didn't realize it was your own relatives you were referring to.

What exactly is not commendable about it? This I don't understand, 'cause truthfully, even though I brought it up, I don't object in any fundamental way to the Republican Party bringing an outsider in to run in Illinois or here in Florida or anywhere for that matter. I don't understand how exactly it is indicative of dishonesty or any other unscrupulous behavior outside of normal partisan competitiveness. This is America, not Europe. We all speak the same language, we're all Americans. There is no reason to believe that someone from Texas would be unable to competently represent the state of Florida, etc., etc. Perhaps that is why the law is written to allow the people to decide who is best to represent them regardless of where they come from. After all, you don't even have to have been born in America at all to hold a seat in our House or Senate.

I for one would love to have Hillary represent my state in the Senate. Big surprise, I know....

No, no surprise. But don't you wonder how out of the entire state of New York, one of the largest populations in the country, there wasn't a single suitable candidate who had paid his/her dues on behalf of the people there? They brought in an Arkansas woman who had never lived there, never held an elected office, much less paid her dues, to be their senator? If I was somebody who had devoted my time, talent, and loyalty to the party there, and I had ambitions along that line, I think I would be really miffed. But it wasn't my call. And it is just an idle observation. And it's safer having Hillary in the Senate where we can keep an eye on her and better monitor her campaign activities anyway.

I would not vote for somebody brought into New Mexico just to run for political office. I would definitely question that person's motives re having the interests of the state in mind.
 
You didnt agree with me casue I implied that condi wouldnt be elected because of race. You simply just said you think condi wouldnt be elected casue you feel that hillary is actually a better candidate, not for being a different color.

You dont even know when you are agreeing with anyone:doh

You said you didnt agree with me as far as condi being a bettter candidate which says to me and everyone else that color wouldnt be the issue. You think condi isnt a better candidate. So race and color wouldnt be the issue to you.

god I dont understand you :roll:
 
SKILMATIC said:
You didnt agree with me casue I implied that condi wouldnt be elected because of race. You simply just said you think condi wouldnt be elected casue you feel that hillary is actually a better candidate, not for being a different color.

You dont even know when you are agreeing with anyone:doh

You said you didnt agree with me as far as condi being a bettter candidate which says to me and everyone else that color wouldnt be the issue. You think condi isnt a better candidate. So race and color wouldnt be the issue to you.

god I dont understand you :roll:

She would not be a better candidate because she has NO experience holding an elected office. NONE!!!
 
Kelzie said:
She would not be a better candidate because she has NO experience holding an elected office. NONE!!!


Aside from being a despicable sexist....

NAY to Hillary. She would be a President like her husband and that would be bad news for the military (unless she's learned a few lessons from Bill's mistakes).

NAY to Condy. While being intelligent, she has no experience in office.

Wow. If this was to happen...I believe I would feel like a Democrat as he stared at the ballot sheet trying to decide between Bush or Kerry. What to do...what to do? Is Perot running?
 
SKILMATIC said:
Yeah and they are stupid for it too. :lol:

They vote for the party who instigated and wanted to keep segregation. Yeah sounds like they are REAL GENIOUSES. :doh

If I am not mistaken I beleive wallace was a moderate deomcrat? Or mabe I am wrong.

you're leaving out one little fact...it is the Democrats from outside the south who effectively ended segregation, and many, many of those democrats you speak of switched to the other side when they were "betrayed" by their yankee brethren....and their like-minded descendants, well, I can assure you, they did not vote for John Kerry last year...

just a little omission...no big deal

And you are right - as you said previously, there is still bias towards color in America. But it is not the kind that would prevent a woman like Condi Rice from being elected. It is the sort that denies there is racism because there is such a thing as a Condi Rice. We're coming along though...
 
Back
Top Bottom