A Reality About Hillary Clinton That Many Liberals Need To Face

Let me list a few numbers for everyone: 78 80 80 83 Those are the ages that Supreme Court Justices Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsberg will be when the next president is sworn in, respectively. The next president we elect (assuming he or she serves two terms) could very well be the individual who selects four Supreme Court Justices.
Now, in a world where we’ve all seen how powerful the Supreme Court can be concerning the laws that impact all of us, who on the left wants a Republican such as Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz or Scott Walker potentially selecting four Supreme Court Justices? Listen, I know quite a few people on the left aren’t huge Hillary Clinton supporters. I personally like her, but I understand that a lot of people don’t. Even as a supporter, I know she’s far from perfect – but there’s a harsh reality that Hillary haters on the left need to face. First, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) isn’t going to run for president. I repeat, Elizabeth Warren is not going to run for president. The only way I think she might is if Clinton decided not to run. Considering that isn’t going to happen, I will repeat once again – Elizabeth Warren isn’t going to run for president.

Read more at: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/reality-hillary-clinton-liberals-need-face/

I'm one of those liberals who does not like Hillary Clinton. I never have, BUT, I will vote for her for the reasons laid out in this good article. The future is bleak if the SCOTUS, POTUS and Congress all turn our country into a North Korean style Republic. They want a religious dictator at every level of government. The states are already turning that way. Our future is dim. I know North Korea isn't religious, but the religious Republican Party is just the same as the North Korean stye of government.

I don't think the future is dim.  The Republican Party is in the grip of the far-RW.  Not only is that an extreme minority, but the RW is way out-of-step with the more LW general public.  Moreover, Republicans are locked into a dilemma because in order to win primaries, they must assume RW positions on important social and political issues.  This means they will never be able to win the general presidential election, unless Dems do something drastically wrong.

The Supreme Court is 5-4, so all the Democrats have to do is keep winning the presidency and they will probably appoint the next 3-4 justices.

The Senate is in the hands of Republicans as a result of an off-year elections (Republicans vote more than Democrats in off-year elections).  Most likely, in 2016 the Senate will go back to the Democrats.

The House is the one national election that goes by retail politics.  The House is affected by the off-year drop effect, but it is also in a position of extreme RW gerrymandering.

Republican gerrymandering of districts is not all that bad for Democrats.  True, Democrats are in constant jeopardy of losing the House, but it makes Republicans vulnerable of being 'primaried'—being beaten in the primary elections by a far more conservative candidate.  Then that candidate goes on, inevitably, to lose the race to the much more liberal general public.  In other words, it more-or-less guarantees that the Republicans will always put up unacceptable candidates, with the natural and probable effect that the Democrats will win.

Everyone, take a deep breath.  Now, take a seat.  You’re going to want to be sitting down for this reality check I’m about to give to you:

There will not be a Democrat in the White House, next election.  Period. Uh-uh. Kiss that one good bye.  Just find some solace in the fact that you can’t miss something you’ve never had.

Original Quill wrote:

“…but the RW is way out-of-step with the more LW general public.”

Ummmmm… what?

Does anyone remember the 2014 elections?  In case anyone was stranded at sea that year and wasn’t around to witness the bludgeoning Democrats took that year, here’s a quick recap:

• The 2014 election yielded a Congress that has not seen so many Republicans since 1929.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/11/03/this-could-be-the-most-dominant-republican-congress-since-1929/

• There are more Republicans in state legislatures since the party was born.

“The GOP now controls 68 out of 98 partisan state legislative chambers -- the highest number in the history of the party. Republicans currently hold the governorship and both houses of the legislature in 23 states (24 if Sean Parnell wins re-election in Alaska), while Democrats have that level of control in only seven.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/11/11/the_other_gop_wave_state_legislatures__124626.html

• There are still more people that oppose ObamaCare than support it.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

• Obama is still a political liability to his party and his approval ratings show that.

• To further enunciate that point, the Democratic Party is at its lowest approval ever.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/179345/democratic-party-favorable-rating-falls-record-low.aspx

Facts are facts, and the ones above clearly paint a much different picture than that of an America that is overwhelmingly left-leaning.

Look, as an Independent, I don’t take sides.  I’m an equal opportunity criticizer.  These comments aren’t to berate the left or try to bait an argument.  I’m asserting these facts to bring some of you back to Earth.  So long as Obama continues to be an ineffective and unpopular president, Democrats will be handed the unenviable task of cleaning up the mess he leaves in his wake.  And with sooooo many on the left already disenchanted with Hillary, do you really think she’s going to be voted in as POTUS?

Take heart, though.  Once the Republican candidate wins the 2016 presidential election, I’ll be joining the rest of you in criticizing his or her short-comings, as well.

Just an observation from this side of the pond but I thought that Hilary Clinton would pretty much walk into the White House.

Can't see anyone around who can stop her really.

Irn Bru wrote:Just an observation from this side of the pond but I thought that Hilary Clinton would pretty much walk into the White House.

Can't see anyone around who can stop her really.

but as Independent points out
there is a large portion of Americans that defy logic and reason or have hearts of pure evil.

Obama would have won in Australia with over 75% of the primary vote if polls are to believed. here he is considered RW.

veya_victaous wrote:Obama would have won in Australia with over 75% of the primary vote if polls are to believed. here he is considered RW.

RW? Does that mean real wanka. Sorry to swear but that is all I can think of at this time of night.

Right Wing
but Real wanker is pretty close

Indep. thoughts wrote:Does anyone remember the 2014 elections?  In case anyone was stranded at sea that year and wasn’t around to witness the bludgeoning Democrats took that year, here’s a quick recap:

Meh…an off-year election generally favors the conservative, because liberals tend to slack off at the polls.

Indep. thoughts wrote:There are still more people that oppose ObamaCare than support it.

In your wet dreams.  Try telling 15-million people they no longer have healthcare.  But first, make sure the back door is unlocked for your escape.  And get out of the of the other Republicans who will be bailing too.  Lol.

Indep. thoughts wrote:Obama is still a political liability to his party and his approval ratings show that.

History shows that Obama has one of the highest ratings for a president at this point in his second term.  And why wouldn’t he…he is one of the three best presidents the US has ever had.  

The Republicans (Bush and Cheney) left the country in an ugly, purposeless war, on the brink of a certain depression, with double-digit unemployment, a $17-trillion deficit and bin Ladin still alive and running around.

Obama got the country out of Iraq, saved America from the next Depression, brought unemployment down from 10.5% to 5.5%, oversaw the creation of 5.5-million jobs, more than both Bushes:

eblog wrote:More net jobs have been created under Obama — 5,142,000 as of the August jobs report — than under George H.W. Bush — 2,637,000 — and George W. Bush — 1,282,000 — combined, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

Obama has overseen the American stock market soar to over $17,000 average in the Dow Jones (highest ever), and he has created a highly successful medical care system (despite the false tears of Republicans) and he got bin Laden...when the Republican administration was completely inept at even finding him.

That's a hell of a record.  The only reason Republicans don't like him is because of his race.  That's their problem.

They'll be completely gone by 2024.

Disappointing to see Independent citing a six-month old Gallup poll when there's one from a month ago on the same topic: http://www.gallup.com/poll/181985/neither-major-party-cracks-favorability-latest-poll.aspx?utm_source=POLITICAL_PARTIES&utm_medium=topic&utm_campaign=tiles

Spoiler alert -- Democrats have a higher approval rating than Republicans once again ...

Also:

PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE – Head-to-head, Clinton leads Bush by 12 points among registered voters, 53-41 percent, essentially unchanged in the past year. She has 54 to 56 percent support against Rubio, Walker and Cruz alike, vs. their 39 to 40 percent.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clintons-popularity-declines-beats-gop-rivals-poll/story?id=30052071

Poll taken two weeks ago.

Irn Bru wrote:Just an observation from this side of the pond but I thought that Hilary Clinton would pretty much walk into the White House.

Can't see anyone around who can stop her really.

Also from across the pond.....

Why is Obama so unpopular then? Heard a few American slag him off.

Also I like the fact that a president can only serve two terms - I think that should be the same here for our governments

Why is Obama so unpopular then?

RACISM

veya_victaous wrote:Right Wing
but Real wanker is pretty close

Maybe it s a qualification that required for certain power positions, such as leaders.

Lurker wrote:

Why is Obama so unpopular then?

RACISM

Could it be that he has broken the majority of promises that he made in the run up to the election.

Name one, Jane. The right-wing gestapo has stopped him wherever they can. We have the most ignorant Republicans in the Universe. They only support the rich. They are bought and paid for by lobbyists. They work for lobbyists and hate the American people. If you are not the rich elite you are a slacker in their minds. Fuck them.

Original Quill,

Meh…an off-year election generally favors the conservative...

So long as the Democrats maintain that mindset, they will be overcome by the Republicans. 2014 went well beyond just “favoring”.  It was historic and unprecedented.

Try telling 15-million people they no longer have healthcare.

¾ of the enrollees already had insurance.  When their premiums significantly ballooned (despite Obama’s “promise” that they would be reduced), the popularity of ObamaCare plummeted.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/05/10/new-mckinsey-survey-74-of-obamacare-sign-ups-were-previously-insured/

History shows that Obama has one of the highest ratings for a president at this point in his second term.

No.  Within the context of your statement, he is subpar.
Per Gallup, the average is 53% approval during this time in a 2nd term.  Obama is at 47%.  That hardly qualifies him as “one of the highest ratings for a president at this point in his second term”.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx


Yes, Obama was president during a very tenuous but good recovery.  However, this rebound was despite Obama’s policies; not because of them.


Ben

Disappointing to see Independent citing a six-month old Gallup poll when there's one from a month ago on the same topic.

There is only a 3-point difference in the numbers from the two articles (36 vs 39 percent).  That’s hardly a cause for celebration.  In my opinion, they should both be at 5% approval.  While both have a few good stances, most of their “work” revolve around political posturing and infighting, instead of getting things done.  Both parties need a great deal of introspection and rehabilitation.  Let’s hope that a more sincere and results-oriented party emerges from the ashes of the two.  The status quo of both parties are not in line with the majority of their constituents.


Lurker

Name one [of the campaign promises Obama broke], Jane.

I know that you weren’t addressing me, so I do apologize for hopping into your question.  However, if you would like one (or a few dozen) please let me know.  I’ll enumerate the broken campaign promises, as well as ones broken during his tenure.  

Cheers to all.

BREAKING NEWS!!

A video taken that showed a behind-the-scenes look at Hillary's campaign commercial is causing quite a stir. I always imagined she was like this, and now we have proof!!
If you haven't seen it, yet, you NEED to watch it!

That 2014 midterm certainly was historic:

General election voter turnout for the 2014 midterms was the lowest it's been in any election cycle since World War II, according to early projections by the United States Election Project.

Just 36.4 percent of the voting-eligible population cast ballots as of last Tuesday, continuing a steady decline in midterm voter participation that has spanned several decades. The results are dismal, but not surprising -- participation has been dropping since the 1964 election, when voter turnout was at nearly 49 percent.

The last time voter turnout was so low during a midterm cycle was in 1942, when only 33.9 percent of eligible voters cast ballots.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/11/10/voter-turnout-in-2014-was-the-lowest-since-wwii/

But that's just the way conservatives like it, of course.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw

captainJane wrote:

Lurker wrote:

RACISM

Could it be that he has broken the majority of promises that he made in the run up to the election.

Your question is tangential to one of the great issues in American history.  At the beginning of Dr. Obama's first term, the Republicans caucused in a flurry of bother and panic over the fact that a black male had been elected president.  Ever since the year 1964 the Republicans have pursued a Southern-Strategy (Google: Lee Atwater or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater), pandering to the racist views of the old South.  Election of a black president was a dire insult to them, and evidence of how out of touch they have, and are become.  Undeterred, Republicans came up with the McConnel/Boehner doctrine: We will sacrifice the well-being of the United States before we will permit the success of a black man as president!  As a consequence, Republicans in Congress have stalled any form of legislation, and twice prevented the passing even of a budget for the entire country!  They are threatening the same this year.

All that I have recounted above, in my previous post, has been accomplished by Dr. Obama despite the treason of Republicans over the past seven-years.  He has taken the country back from the brink of economic failure, nurtured the US economy until it blossomed, removed us from two catastrophic and unnecessary wars, chopped unemployment in half, increased jobs by 5.5-million, and created a health care system that is wildly popular with the unbiased, general public.  And...he got Usuma bin Ladin!  

When you figure this was all in the face of the sedition of the Republican Party...well, you've got to surmise that the man is a miracle worker.  In the face of such overwhelming evidence, anyone who is critical of Dr. Obama we must conclude was a part of the conspiracy against a black president in the first place.

"INDEPENDENT THOUGHT" proved the last time that she was writing her rabid drug-induced insanities on here, that she has absolutely lost all touch with reality, somewhere in her long-ago drug-addled past...

THIS LATEST pack of lies on her part simply goes to confirm that ~ far from ever being "independent" minded ~ she obviously still remains the same brain-dead senile and befuddled extreme RW Republican stooge that she was last year..

SILLY OLD deranged cretin that she is, 'Wholly-dependant GOP-thoughts" should also factor into her delusional fantasies, the sad fact that the Repub's support across the American voting public has fallen to around 20-25% over the last couple of years !

FURTHER to that, even among the Republican Party itself, internal polling this week shows that the front runner for their POTUS candidate only has 16% support..

captainJane wrote:

Lurker wrote:
RACISM

Could it be that he has broken the majority of promises that he made in the run up to the election.

Rubbish...

IndependentThoughts wrote:
BREAKING NEWS!!

A video taken that showed a behind-the-scenes look at Hillary's campaign commercial is causing quite a stir. I always imagined she was like this, and now we have proof!!
If you haven't seen it, yet, you NEED to watch it!

NOW "Independent thoughts" reveals her true identity...

A third-rate Comedienne on 'Saturday Night Live' !

Original Quill

Trying to inject race into a non-racial debate is distasteful.  This comment isn't specifically directed towards you.  It's directed to those that employ such a last-resort tactic.

Did you know it was the Democrats that didn't want slavery abolished?  Do you know who the first Republican president was?
(Hint:  He defeated the Democrats/The South during the Civil War.)

Here's a fun bit of trivia:
We hear a lot about filibusters in Congress, but do you know who single-handedly delivered the longest filibuster EVER and what he was filibustering against?

Strom Thurmond (South Carolina Democrat Senator) supported racial segregation throughout much of his career. He wrote the first version of the Southern Manifesto, announcing southern disagreement with the 1954 US Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which ruled that public school segregation was unconstitutional.

In an unsuccessful attempt to derail passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, Thurmond made the longest filibuster ever conducted by a single senator, speaking for a total of 24 hours and 18 minutes.

Yep.  That racist Democrat railed against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.


Like I said:  Neither parties are innocent and both need reform.



Lone Puppy

Sounds like you hate women.  Instead of holding all your anger inside and being hateful, you should forgive your mother for dropping you on your head.  I'm sure she didn't do it on purpose... at least not most of the times.  

Lurker wrote:

Why is Obama so unpopular then?

RACISM

Really????
How so?

eddie wrote:

Lurker wrote:

RACISM

Really????  
How so?

It certainly does play a part with some Eddie, that is most definitely a factor
You can easily tell this by the rhetoric used against him by some.

IndependentThoughts wrote:Original Quill

Trying to inject race into a non-racial debate is distasteful.  This comment isn't specifically directed towards you.  It's directed to those that employ such a last-resort tactic.

Denial is a lonely, and painful experience, IT.  Take it slowly.  Yes, unfortunately, the US is a racist nation.  It began with slavery, did you know that?  It extended itself with outlaws and terrorists like the KKK, writhed with 'separate but equal' and endured segregation until Brown v. Bd. of Education and the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The extraordinary character of US politics since a black president came into office,  begs some answer.  It won't be handled by the platitudes and bromides you toss around.  Answer the specifics, then introduce your adjectives.

Indep. thoughts wrote:Did you know it was the Democrats that didn't want slavery abolished?  Do you know who the first Republican president was?
(Hint:  He defeated the Democrats/The South during the Civil War.)

Yes, I know history quite well.  Did you know about the Southern Strategy pursued by the Republican Party since 1964?  You really must catch up.  Google: Lee Atwater.  The Republican Party has done a complete turn-around since losing the Goldwater election.  They picked up on the losses of the Democrats from the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and have been the party of racism ever since.  Listen, if all you represent is the very rich, it's any port in a storm.

Indep. thoughts wrote:Here's a fun bit of trivia:
We hear a lot about filibusters in Congress, but do you know who single-handedly delivered the longest filibuster EVER and what he was filibustering against?

Strom Thurmond (South Carolina Democrat Senator) supported racial segregation throughout much of his career. He wrote the first version of the Southern Manifesto, announcing southern disagreement with the 1954 US Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which ruled that public school segregation was unconstitutional.

In an unsuccessful attempt to derail passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, Thurmond made the longest filibuster ever conducted by a single senator, speaking for a total of 24 hours and 18 minutes.

Yep.  That racist Democrat railed against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

We’ll talk after you bone up on your history.  Pay particular attention to post-1964 US history, a period in which you appear to be somewhat deficient.  I swear, it’s like you didn’t know the House of Hanover took over from the Stuarts.

Indep. thoughts wrote:Like I said:  Neither parties are innocent and both need reform.

If that is what you have been paying attention to, no wonder you are talking in circles.

The point isn’t blame.  The point is what is best for the country.  The Republicans have no answer for healthcare, immigration, the war on women, economic reform, racism, the war on Hispanics and voter suppression, to name a few.

What the Republicans do show concern for is, 1) Obama (racism) and 2) war…any time, any place.  They have a pretty nasty record that involves: lying, kidnapping, torture, rape, and murder.  Couple that with an absolute dearth of answers about getting out of war or halting racism or corruption in elections, and they don’t look so good.

Original Quill,
  I think you’re missing my entire point:  Neither the Republican nor Democratic party have a spotless history when it comes to racial discrimination.  Neither of you hold high ground of any sort.
  You keep trying to create a narrative of how awful and racist Republicans are.  I may agree with you on that point, but let’s not leave the Democrats out of the picture, either.  Just because our first black president happens to be a member of the Democratic Party doesn't absolve it from its past transgressions, nor does it mitigate the damage it’s done to thousands of black lives.
  I’m not defending Republicans and chastising Democrats, or vice versa.  I don’t give a single hoot for either party.  The point I’m making is, if you’re going to condemn a party/country/entity for their actions, you’d better look deep within your own and condemn it as well; not extenuate it.  Don’t malign another party and then hop on a high-horse while simultaneously turning a blind eye to your own party’s encroachments.  Both parties are, for the most part, useless and hypocritical.  Tear them both down and start with a clean slate.

  I realize that my comments within this thread are akin to whacking a hornet’s nest with a stick.  It stirs a lot of you up and makes many of you very angry.  Grrrrrr!
That’s good.  I want to stir up your bias and stick your nose in your own party’s poo.  In case some of you believe your party is innocent, pure, and without fault, my comments will show you just how one-sided and blind you really are.

  Everyone, I encourage you to be brave and step away from your herd.  Nobody ever did anything notable whilst inside of their comfort zone.  Never be afraid to step up and stand out.  Never stop asking questions.  Never believe something just because someone you’re politically aligned with said so.  Some of you are sheep, aloof in your journey to find purpose.  Don’t let someone set your agenda or make up your mind for you.

OQ, if you want to discuss the racism exhibited by political parties, I’d be happy to join you in that discussion.  But only if it’s an honest one.  One that discusses the wrongdoings of both sides of the aisle.  Not some weak discussion that indemnifies the cruelties and atrocious acts of one, while scorching the other for the same.

Both parties are guilty.  Period.  Recognize that and you'll be one step closer to having an Independent Thought (pun intended).

IndependentThoughts wrote:Original Quill,
  I think you’re missing my entire point:  Neither the Republican or Democratic party have a spotless history when it comes to racial discrimination.  Neither of you hold high ground of any sort.
  You keep trying to create a narrative of how awful and racists Republicans are.  I may agree with you on that point, but let’s not leave the Democrats out of the picture, either.  Just because our first black president happens to be a member of the Democratic Party doesn’t absolve it from its past transgression, nor does it mitigate the damage it’s done to thousands of black lives.
  I’m not defending Republican and chastising Democrats, or vice versa.  I don’t give a single hoot for either party.  The point I’m making is, if you’re going to condemn a party/country/entity for their actions, you’d better look deep within your own and condemn it as well; not extenuate it.  Don’t malign another party and then hop on a high-horse while simultaneously turning a blind eye to your own party’s encroachments.  Both parties are, for the most part, useless and hypocritical.  Tear them both down and start with a clean slate.

  I realize that my comments within this thread is akin to whacking a hornet’s nest with a stick.  It stirs a lot of you up and makes many of you very angry.  Grrrrrr!
That’s good.  I want to stir up your bias and stick your nose in your own party’s poo.  In case some of you believe your party is innocent, pure, and without fault, my comments will show you just how one-sided and blind you really are.

  Everyone, I encourage you to be brave and step away from your herd.  Nobody ever did anything notable whilst inside of their comfort zone.  Never be afraid to step up and stand out.  Never stop asking questions.  Never believe something just because someone you’re politically aligned with said so.  Some of you are sheep, aloof in your journey to find purpose.  Don’t let someone set your agenda or make up your mind for you.

OQ, if you want to discuss the racism exhibited by political parties, I’d be happy to join you in that discussion.  But only if it’s an honest one.  One that discusses the wrongdoings of both sides of the aisle.  Not some weak discussion that defends the cruelties and atrocious acts of one, while omitting the same of the other.

Both parties are guilty.  Period.  Recognize that and you'll be one step closer to having an Independent Thought (pun intended).

An interesting and fair post and very much agree on the point of Democrats and Republicans, which you find the same with politics in the UK, each have their own faults within their history. From my understanding, most wars in the 20th century have been enacted by a Democrat President.

Also this is interesting:


At the beginning, the military was practically nonexistent.
Believing that “standing armies in time of peace are inconsistent with the principles of republican governments [and] dangerous to the liberties of a free people,” the U.S. legislature disbanded the Continental Army following the Revolutionary War, except for a few dozen troops guarding munitions at West Point, New York, and Fort Pitt, Pennsylvania. Yet it also called upon four well-manned state militias to provide 700 men in order to deal with potential threats from Native Americans and the British. A reorganized version of this so-called First American Regiment essentially would be all President George Washington had at his command upon taking office in April 1789.

IndependentThoughts wrote:Original Quill

Trying to inject race into a non-racial debate is distasteful.  This comment isn't specifically directed towards you.  It's directed to those that employ such a last-resort tactic.

Did you know it was the Democrats that didn't want slavery abolished?  Do you know who the first Republican president was?
(Hint:  He defeated the Democrats/The South during the Civil War.)

Here's a fun bit of trivia:
We hear a lot about filibusters in Congress, but do you know who single-handedly delivered the longest filibuster EVER and what he was filibustering against?

Strom Thurmond (South Carolina Democrat Senator) supported racial segregation throughout much of his career. He wrote the first version of the Southern Manifesto, announcing southern disagreement with the 1954 US Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which ruled that public school segregation was unconstitutional.

In an unsuccessful attempt to derail passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, Thurmond made the longest filibuster ever conducted by a single senator, speaking for a total of 24 hours and 18 minutes.

Yep.  That racist Democrat railed against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.


Like I said:  Neither parties are innocent and both need reform.



Lone Puppy

Sounds like you hate women.  Instead of holding all your anger inside and being hateful, you should forgive your mother for dropping you on your head.  I'm sure she didn't do it on purpose... at least not most of the times.  

Why don't you admit the fact that senators like Thurmond, Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, etc. joined the Republican Party and were huge successes with their base?

Thurmond entered Democratic politics in '48 and left for the GOP in '64. He remained a Republican until his death 13 years ago, so that means he spent 16 years as a Democrat and 38 years as a Republican.

Your point is as disingenuous as if I called Reagan a great Democratic politician. http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/president-reagans-legacy-and-us-nuclear-weapons-policy

Independent Thoughts wrote:I think you’re missing my entire point:  Neither the Republican nor Democratic party have a spotless history when it comes to racial discrimination.  Neither of you hold high ground of any sort.

Read the title of this thread…it is not about the distant past, but about the present and future.  Yes, the recent past is relevant in understanding causation, but we really don’t need to look beyond 1964 to find out why Republicans are racists, and why they have such a problem with Dr. Obama.

Independant Thoughts wrote:You keep trying to create a narrative of how awful and racist Republicans are.  I may agree with you on that point, but let’s not leave the Democrats out of the picture, either.  Just because our first black president happens to be a member of the Democratic Party doesn't absolve it from its past transgressions, nor does it mitigate the damage it’s done to thousands of black lives.

You have lost the topic…the question was asked why Republicans have such a huge dislike for a black president that they would literally commit treason rather than work with him (?).  Thus, we are talking about why Republicans today have such a big problem with race.  This is a problem today, not pre-1964.  It serves no purpose to bring up some remote academic history. We are not having a casual discussion about academic history.  The question is, Why are Republicans racists now?

The answer: Republicans are racists today, and have a profound dislike of Dr. Obama, because they politically shifted in 1964, and admitted into their ranks the people and the issues of the rural, mostly populist south.  

The Southern Strategy (as it is called), was developed by political strategist Lee Atwater, a political consultant and strategist to the Republican Party, and an advisor to U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush and chairman of the Republican National Committee.  The Southern Strategy represented a conscious effort by Republicans not to condemn racism, but cultivate it as a means of gathering votes.

Now, over 50-years later, it is in the Republican blood.  Southern states like South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas and Arizona have all subscribed to the Republican Party, and the officials they elect were born Republican…and, don’t forget what we are talking about: they are today's racists.  So, the Republican Party today is the champion of racism, and that is why they are intractable in their hatred for blacks.  (Think of them as Muslims contemplating Israel, if you need a parallel.)

The rest of your post is swill.  You make a lot of assumptions about people you don’t know very well, and you preach to the choir over self-serving nonsense.  We are having the relevant discussion, and I am pulling you back into it.  You have tried to steer it in a different direction, change meanings, and put words in the mouths of others…and I’m not letting you get away with that.  That’s all.

So carry on…

So.....how did Obama win two terms if most Americans are racist?

eddie wrote:So.....how did Obama win two terms if most Americans are racist?

Who said most Americans?

I thought what was stated was most those against Obama?

Again you cannot rule out that racism does play a part in regards to some who are Anti Obama

Lurker wrote:Name one, Jane. The right-wing gestapo has stopped him wherever they can. We have the most ignorant Republicans in the Universe. They only support the rich. They are bought and paid for by lobbyists. They work for lobbyists and hate the American people. If you are not the rich elite you are a slacker in their minds. Fuck them.

the TPP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership

He may be decent but
He is still a politician

THE 'Trans Pacific Partnerships' free trade agreement threat simply goes to show that the majority of US politicians from both sides ~ including many of those in the White House ~ are just as beholden to 'Big Business' today, as always...

AS ARE many in the Labor parties in Oz, Britain, Canada, (probably New Zealand..) and the "Socialist" parties in France and Germany..

AS WITH modern day Japan, Germany, Russia, China and Britain, today's America is a another "Corporatist state" dominated by business interests and 'economic rationalism' first and foremost.

eddie wrote:So.....how did Obama win two terms if most Americans are racist?

Because most Americans are evolving on the issue.  Republicans however wish to pull back on the issue of race because they feel they can reap the benefits of a huge vote by stirring the racist pot.  It's a dynamic system, not a static picture.

You have heard me say a thousand times that Republicans are way out of touch with the median of American opinion.  This is that gap.  Most Americans are quite willing to lay aside their racist sentiments as long as there is not some focus for resentment.  In fact, if anything the focus is in the opposite direction--with these thousands of police beatings and murders of black men, America is awakening to its own racism, and the movement leftward is gaining additional thrust.  Then Americans look over and see Republicans, who want to suppress the vote in African American districts.  Then they see Republicans cutting school lunches, education, health, etc., and they recognize that these are not programs for the upper-middle class--nor, least of all for the rich--no, these are the cuts that go to the heart of the black ghetto...and Americans put two and two together.  Republicans are anti-black, anti-Hispanic, anti-women, pro-war, religious freaks...like spiders who are trying to save their long decaying nest.

So American is evolving.  That is not to say that America is not racist...remember, its a dynamic world and a dynamic system.  But America, I feel, does not like itself when it sees the cop gunning down another Black man, and so America votes for a black president....twice, as you mention. Slowly, but surely, they are saying: We get it.

The Republican response is: This is not going the way we planned!!  It was a shock to Republicans that an African American man was elected.  So their response is, and has been all of this obstruction and obstinance...a complete refusal to participate in government, symbolic nonsense like voting 56 times to repeal Obamacare, twice refusing to pass a budget--and it looks like they will try that one again--and generally trying to bring down the government in order to spite the black man in the White House.

So we come full circle and have a host of Republican candidates who wish to be their party's candidate for president.  Only, their party is bereft meaning or purpose.  They can't admit that they are racist; America has just elected an African man...twice.  They can't squeeze any more tax cuts out...the trickle down theory, Americans see, is a one-way ticket to a general depression, and more importantly it doesn't work.  They scream this hollow bawl that Obama is unpopular, but then Republicans witness and see that he is extraordinarily successful (see above) and that Americans actually like him!  As I say, he is probably one of the three best presidents in the history of the US.

Why is Hillary going to win?  Consider the alternative...the freak show that Republicans are putting on cannot, and will not attract votes.  In the end, politics is serious business and the Republican 15-minutes is over.

AND, of course, there is the undeniable reality that that Loony-Toon "IndependentThoughts" has always been 100% wrong in every one of her deranged and demented pro-GOP opinions that I have ever seen her post on this site...

I don't follow American politics, but can some one explain why Hilary Clinton is so reviled? Here in England our local Facebook is full of Clinton haters, Why?

nicko wrote:I don't follow American politics, but can some one explain why Hilary Clinton is so reviled?   Here in England our local Facebook is full of Clinton haters, Why?

Republicans have tried to do with Hillary--or, I should say, Women generally--what they tried to do with the African man. They have tried to marginalize her. They have tried to paint a portrait of a dowdy female, with aspirations above her 'apron-strings', whose husband had to seek solace in the arms of another female because his wife was not giving him what he wants or needs!. She doesn't know how to be a REAL WOMAN, and WTF do we want her in the White House again?...is the message.

Again, it is Republicans borrowing from the nastiness of the past, in an attempt to frame a presidential election that holds the possibility of the first female candidate for the office. They (Republicans) thought they could borrow from America's racism to derail a black candidate for president, and now they want to borrow from Ralph Kramden and the Honeymooners (""One of these days... POW!!! Right in the kisser!"), to frame the first female candidate. As this election unfolds, watch and see if you don't recognize cues, nicko, that recall a picture of a nasty, nagging, embittered shrew who hates all men and wants her revenge.

The last one was racism, this is misogyny.

Did you like her Husband?

nicko wrote:Did you like her Husband?

No, frankly I don't. I recognize his talents, and he is on the same side as me. But, there is a big difference: if I went into the White House and pulled my pants down, I would be arrested.

I think he abused the privilege of his office for his own selfish purposes, and in the process he sold out the LW of America and allowed the Republicans to get back in it...where we practically had them dead and gone.

My distaste for Bill Clinton has nothing whatsoever to do with Hillary Clinton. It's not even worth pointing out that she was the victim.