Story Comments
Posted by: getreal1 1 year, 7 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
Neutral
getreal11 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The News media were the first to categorize and label people. Every time any reporter gets on the news he has to tell what kind of voter is supposed to vote what. He uses race and e.t.c. to tell his specifics. Hillary has only been repeating what the news media has been projecting to every American citizen. Shame on you, news Media for thinking that People can not see through you too. Does it really bother the News Media and the NEW YORK TIMES that all votes should be voted? Who is it, trashing the constitution now?
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 7 months ago
-
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
fempatriot1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually I'm shocked that so many hard pressed blue collar workers would vote for the woman whose husband sent the last of the good American industrial jobs to Mexico and China. Bill Clinton may not have instigated NAFTA and GATT, but he signed the legislation letting American industry leave our shores. Blue collar workers are either woefully ignorant or actually believe that this rich woman really does care--which she doesn't. She'll just say anything to get votes.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
StarLord1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
1. HRC didn't start life rich, or with any material advantages.
2. BHO did - he was mostly raised by his rich white grandparents (his grandmother was a VP of the Bank of Hawaii).
3. BILL Clinton was pro-NAFTA. As soon as the Clintons left the White House, Hillary started criticising it on the grounds of a "non-level playing field". I'd say that this means that Hillary felt obliged to not rock the boat while her husband was the President, but afterwards felt free to speak her mind.
4. Given Obama's "bitter" comments, and his flip-flopping on the 2nd amendment and gun control, its clear that he has even less in common with them than she does.
EDIT: Bleh, misplaced. This should be under "fempatriot"'s post.
Reply -
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You're right!
When will blue-collar Americans start voting their interests, and require that corporations be taxed what they owe this country? And be required to not pollute the air and water? And provide a decent minimum wage?
And then the real workers of America, filled with a renewed sense of awareness, could begin to take some power back from 'bushes base'.
That would be shocking, but hey I am for it, and for whoever leads the charge; Clinton or Obama.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
StarLord1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Good sense is not the issue (and I disagree with you there anyway). The issue is who can win in November. That will be the person who can appeal to the most numerous and diverse constituencies in America.
Hint: Their initials aren't BHO.
Reply -
Neutral
Grrr1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
saintetienne1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Think again. Most Republicans are working so that our tax dollars can support welfare recipients - who are overwhelmingly Democrat.
I don't "sneer" at anyone who is out there earning their own way. I save my sneers for the lazy, dependent "poor".
Reply-
Neutral
GWHayduke1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Take a look at the BUDGET, Frenchie.
The US gov budget, that is. Social spending is paltry compared to military spending.
Your tax dollars are spent rebuilding infrastructure & building palatial embassies in Iraq by private contractors - the vast majority of the welfare you support with your hard earned money is CORPORATE welfare thanks to Uncle Dickie.
Reply-
Neutral
saintetienne1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Social spending is paltry compared to military spending."
9 Trillion dollars is paltry? For that's what our government has wasted on social programs since good ol' LBJ enacted the "War on Poverty" (pause, for snicker and laughter) in 1964. Even a HUNDRED "palatial embassies in Iraq" would be a drop in the bucket, in comparison.
9 TRILLION DOLLARS!!! Yet poverty continues to increase, social programs continue to expand, government bureacracy has grown a hundred-fold since then, and homelessness continues its chronic swing upward. But let's keep spending those dollars. Surely there's an end in sight - we just need to throw more money at it. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
I'd rather have my money go into Corporate welfare - at least it's doing something besides increasing government bureacracy and keeping the working class from working.
Honestly, Haypuke. You're a laugh riot! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Reply-
Neutral
GWHayduke1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Cherry pickin your data to support your moronic assertion that social programs don't receive 80% LESS funding than the military, Frenchie?
Specious logic is all you can muster?
Of course it is, its all you have.
Your unapologetic support of a continued failure exemplifies your sad state.
As for increasing government bureacracy - the Dumby administration has increased the size of our government more than ANY OTHER administration....EVER!
Nice try, though.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: Retracted by user4 Replies
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: Retracted by user2 Replies
-
Neutral
lum-chate1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yeh, Obama wins NC by 200,000 votes, his margin of victory among AA's was 540,000 to 60,000 or 480,000 votes. So he lost the white vote by 480,000. It looks like the McGovern coalition is back with a new loser as their leader. I wish the W. Va primary was on that day, his "HUGH" NC victory as professed by the left wing media would look rather small in comparison 57-43 as opposed to 69-31 for Clinton in a state the democrats won last time and need. NC is Republican all the way so Obama wins it. Whoop de doo!
Reply-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The false assumption in that is that every single NC white Democrat who voted for Hillary in the primary will vote for McCain in the fall. That is not going to happen! Very few working class Democrats will vote for McCain when they realize that's a vote for four more years of Bush, and after the general election campaign, they will realize that even if they never spent a day in High School.
Hillary has been spinning the same Big State lie about New York and California. In 1980, the Republicon GOD, Ronald Reagan lost in New York. He also lost in California, his home state where he had been Governor! ANY Democrat will win against McCain in those states this fall.
Reply-
Neutral
lum-chate1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your forgetting 1 simple fact! That was the Democrat primary.
Your right that Clinton supporters will not vote in mass for McCain but a large % of them will join the Republicans who will make sure Obama is trounced in NC. West Virginia is a different story Kerry carried it, Obama will not Dems lose another blue state if they choose a 1 trick pony as their nominee!
Reply -
-
Neutral
lum-chate1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
California went for a Republican 6 out of the last 10 elections. The Asians & Latinos are not as fond of Obama as you are. The "governator" a middle of the road Republican like his good friend McCain will be a big factor. California is in play if Obama is the nominee make no mistake about it!
Reply-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Facts on California in Presidential Elections. See http://www.270towin.com/ and select years. California has gone Democratic in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 and leaning Democratic for 2008.
Dem's the facts.
Reply-
-
Neutral
lum-chate1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ET
About your comment
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
Democratic in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 and leaning Democratic for 2008.
I said 6 out of the last 10 elections the Republicans won California. Try 1988, 1984, 1980, 1976, 1972 & 1968. I stated my facts correctly.
Also your comment He also lost in California, his home state where he had been Governor! ANY Democrat will win against McCain in those states this fall. IS INCORRECT. You get an F
on your report card for fact finding!
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
StarLord1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
According to the exit polls, up to 35% of all of Hillary's voters will vote for McCain in November. Another 15% will stay at home rather than face the Obama v. McCain choice.
Regarding the Big States - stop cherry-picking. Clinton also won in Florida and Ohio (which decided the 2000 and 2004 elections respectively), as well as Pennsylvania, Michigan and the Texas popular vote. The site www.electoral-vote.com has the latest polls for Obama/Clinton vs McCain, updated daily.
If you look at "solid" states, also look at the "solid Red" states - almost every one of them voted for Obama in the primaries.
The data are all there - all you need is eyes to see them...
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
DropkickaLib wrote: "Actually, if you look at voter statistics Obama's support is heavily weighted in favor of African-Americans and the Leftist intelligencia. Over 90% of African-Americans in North Carolina voted for him."
Lies and spin as usual from you. Iowa is just full of blacks and leftist intelligencia? All college educated people are leftist?
I'd be careful with the name calling if I had to champion a man like John McCain. Something about living in a glass house...
Reply-
Neutral
lum-chate1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ET
Iowa was a caucus state where only 1/10th of the Dems bother participating in. In those scenarios the fanatics like the DailyKos, Huffington Post & lets not forget the Moveon.orgers
have undue influence. With only 1/10 of the Dems participating & the wrong 1/10th by the way it was not surprising that Obama got 39%. Next question?
Reply-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I suppose his lack of appeal is why Obama is leading in Popular Vote, States Won, Delegates, superdelegates and fund raising. Hillary is behind in all meaningful metrics because only she has the "winning coalition." Riiiight. And who is it that is a fanatic?
Reply-
-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Never thought I'd be saying this, but I am coming to the conclusion that we may need BOTH of them on the ticket to win in 08. Hillary has alienated key constituencies she can't possibly win without. She appeals to key constituencies Obama can't win without. Maybe the dream ticket is more than just a dream.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
StarLord1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
1. Obama's vote is concentrated (as far as HRc/BHO vs JMC polls indicate) in states what will vote Democrat (in which case they're irrelevant) or Republican by huge margins (in which case they're wasted).
2. Caucuses are inherently undomcractic, for the following reasons:
i) They are organised to only be open for a few house, usually working hours on a weekday, skewing the turnouts.
ii) People can be refused admission at the discretion of the organisers.
iii) No proper oversight by any electoral commissions renders caucuses extrememly vulnerable to electoral fraud.
iv) In caucuses, people can be made to stand up and publicly announce their support, rendering them vulnerable to peer pressure - there isn't a secret ballot.
Subtract caucus votes from both candidates, and Obama is suddenly a LONG way behind. Also, the hard polling data (again, www.electoral-vote.com) indicate Obama losing by a large margin in November to McCain, and Clinton winning.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
StarLord1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Lies? Exit polls established that over 90% of AA voters went for Obama.
Lies? Exit polls indicated a 70-30 advantage in people with college degrees and college students to Obama.
Lies? Obama struggles with Catholics, older people, Hispanics and working-class whites - all established by various exit polls.
Be a little more careful before you throw that word around, please, ET.
Reply-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The lie is that all college educated people are leftist socialist intelligentsia.
Clearly Obama has work to do to win over certain voting blocks that are critical to Democratic Party wins. The superdelegates will no doubt take that into account. But they must also weigh the long-term damage they will do if they decide to overrule the party rules and the elected delegate count. That could damage the party not just in 2008 but for a generation to come.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
bamababy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My husband and I are both so called blue collar workers and we do not support Senator Clinton. In my opinion if she would actually leave this campaign, Senator Obama would be reaping more of the blue collar voters. We don't all support Clinton. Here in Indiana the Teamster President Hoffa was here and they are supporting Obama, doesn't get much more blue collar than that. As far as the African-American vote goes, Clinton actually fairs well there,not all are supporting Obama. I think name calling and sneering is bad for everyone and is very devisive in such a crucial time in our country's history. I voted for Senator Obama, I do not like or respect Senator Clinton but the alternative McCain is way more than this white, blue collared girl could stomach. I would have to vote for her if by some act of devine intervention she won the nomination ( not likely). It's either that or abstain. I am an American and it is my duty to vote, so where does one go?
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
slate1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Context Dio,,, you know full well that comment was in reply to the post stating whites in that state were uneducated.
Cushi said Guess they've got better sense than some of those uneducated blue collar workers Hillary's always bragging about.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
loading ...
People Who Liked This Comment (4)
joey-evans
cushi
vidman04
MilesAwayPeople Who Didn't Like This Comment (0)
No one voted this comment negatively.
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.