Not sure what to think about switching to Edwards

[brxndxn]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: brxndxn
Most intelligent people have known she does not nor did stand a chance since the beginning.. The only way you can have a Hillary win the presidency is if you have someone that is worse running against her.. so that would mean Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee.

Lets see, Hillary does not stand a chance???????? She has sure fooled many political pundits and about a third of the democratic electorate.

And the only way she can win Presidency is to have some worse running against her on the republican field. And ole brxndxn's definition is only the sub set of Giuliani, Romney, and Huckabee. But to properly define the entire set of republican's Hillary would beat, REQUIRES including the entire existing republican field in 08.

And that fixing of the brxndxn fantasy, kind of leaves the set of all intelligent people quite properly and prominently excluding brxndxn from the set of intelligent people. He clearly does not read polling data that show Hillary clobbering any republican.

But unintelligent people will say anything based on nothing..

Perhaps you're too young to even remember the last Presidential election in 2004.. where the media 'polls' were consistently showing Kerry up on Bush ~60/40 and sometimes ~70/30.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Harvey

I think it's good thinking. Edwards is a manufactured product, and everything he does is a calculated attempt to pander to whichever group he thinks will gain the most or cost him the fewest votes.

fixed

No, broken. Show us where Edwards has changed his position to pander to various groups. He's been a consistant advocate for the rights of the poor, and he fought a lot of civil advocacy battles at his own expense until he won on their behalf. He's still advocating the same positions.

when did i say he changed his position to pander to various groups? that's always been his position, no need to change.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Harvey

I think it's good thinking. Edwards is a manufactured product, and everything he does is a calculated attempt to pander to whichever group he thinks will gain the most or cost him the fewest votes.

fixed

No, broken. Show us where Edwards has changed his position to pander to various groups. He's been a consistant advocate for the rights of the poor, and he fought a lot of civil advocacy battles at his own expense until he won on their behalf. He's still advocating the same positions.

when did i say he changed his position to pander to various groups? that's always been his position, no need to change.

Saying 'everything he does' is 'calculated' to 'whichever group' will 'gain the most' is about the opposite of saying he's had one consistent set of positions for decades.

You don't like the positions he has that care about the less well off, and so you try to call them something they're not that might be a harsher attack, rather than defend your view.

 

[Lemon law]

I hate to tell ElFenix the facts of life, but the sometime the conventional wisdom is wrong, but not all that often. In terms of Hillary or the democrats, in 08, most of the events will almost certainly work against Republicans.

Maybe events will also break for Ron Paul, but more likely Ron Paul will hurt Republican chances.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: brxndxn
Most intelligent people have known she does not nor did stand a chance since the beginning.. The only way you can have a Hillary win the presidency is if you have someone that is worse running against her.. so that would mean Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee.

However, this race, thanks to the Ron Paul grassroots effort, and those made by Obama's supporters, and Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich, is becoming much more 'educated' than normal presidential races. And, educated people do not vote for crooked hacks that fail to explain their stances on every single position... Hillary, Edwards, Giuliani, Romney, and Huckabee are crooked hacks.

The OP said the people switched to Edwards from Clinton.

Didn't say anything about your Paul.

Paulbots should be banned from this activity.

That's Dave's approach to democracy in a nutshell.

If you don't agree with Dave you should be silenced.

You never fail to show your true colors, you America hating piece of crap.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I hate to tell ElFenix the facts of life, but the sometime the conventional wisdom is wrong, but not all that often. In terms of Hillary or the democrats, in 08, most of the events will almost certainly work against Republicans.

i fully agree with that statement, so i don't know what you're talking about by "facts of life." unless something really major happens (on the level of iran testing a nuke) then most events will almost certainly work against Republicans.

color me by your comment

Originally posted by: Craig234

Saying 'everything he does' is 'calculated' to 'whichever group' will 'gain the most' is about the opposite of saying he's had one consistent set of positions for decades.

i haven't been watching him for decades. but seems to me he his positions haven't changed much in the last 4 years that he has been campaigning. it's not hard to ask oneself 'what is the most populist position i can take?'

 

[brxndxn]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: brxndxn
Most intelligent people have known she does not nor did stand a chance since the beginning.. The only way you can have a Hillary win the presidency is if you have someone that is worse running against her.. so that would mean Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee.

However, this race, thanks to the Ron Paul grassroots effort, and those made by Obama's supporters, and Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich, is becoming much more 'educated' than normal presidential races. And, educated people do not vote for crooked hacks that fail to explain their stances on every single position... Hillary, Edwards, Giuliani, Romney, and Huckabee are crooked hacks.

The OP said the people switched to Edwards from Clinton.

Didn't say anything about your Paul.

Paulbots should be banned from this activity.

That's Dave's approach to democracy in a nutshell.

If you don't agree with Dave you should be silenced.

You never fail to show your true colors, you America hating piece of crap.

ROFL.. I agree, though. Dave is an America hating piece of crap.

I am a bot, though.. All of my ~7000 posts were really just to establish a facade.. especially the ones where I supported Bush in 2004.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Saying 'everything he does' is 'calculated' to 'whichever group' will 'gain the most' is about the opposite of saying he's had one consistent set of positions for decades.

i haven't been watching him for decades. but seems to me he his positions haven't changed much in the last 4 years that he has been campaigning. it's not hard to ask oneself 'what is the most populist position i can take?'[/quote]

So, your criticism of him is that he holds consistent positions which are not based on any better reason that that they're popular.

First, do you have any evidence about how he arrived at his agenda of concern for the poor and middle class, evidence that it was for phony pandering alone,not any better motive?

Second, is a politician having an agenda that's 'populist' a bad thing, barring any actual reason why it's a bad policy? Would it be better if he represents the top 1%?

Third, if his agenda is a good one, isn't that more important than how he arrived at it? Not that I'm saying he arrived at it for the wrong reason, but even if he did.

While JFK sat watching his inagural parade, he noticed there were no blacks in the Coast Guard unit, and commented to have that looked into. His reasons were in no small part how it looked, political; later on a larger scale, it was how the photos of police dogs being used to attack black schoolchildren looked in the international press that got him and many others a lot more motivated than they had been to 'do something'. Not the noblest of motives, but it doesn't change that he then played an important role on civil rights.

You're picking a president and I think their agenda may be more important than the details on how they got it. I prefer Edwards' opportunity for all agenda to some others' agendas.

 

[ElFenix]

i'm criticizing him because every time i look at him i think 'that guy is a slimy douchebag shark.' i've met plenty of his type in my profession. they're all the same. so, no, other than my gut feeling that he does everything to get himself more power, influence and fame and that suckers are drinking down his cool aid, no, i suppose i don't have any evidence.

of course he is going to pick a position and stick with it. he was front and center for mr. flip flop in 2004. no way he's making the same mistake.

and i ain't picking shit, i live in texas. damn near last of the primaries, and almost guaranteed to vote for whomever the republican nominee is.

 

[wwswimming]

i was just talking to one of the guys at the local store. he likes Edwards
because he "gets down among the common man", and not just for the
photo-op.