Paul leads GOP NH field 2016, Hillary leads Dems

  • Thread starter Thread starter ishii
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Contarini said:
Because “cackling” evokes pejorative images of old women, perhaps even witches.

The hidden message behind these kinds of criticisms is that women have to be young and beautiful or they aren’t worth taking seriously.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Exactly. It is OK to be critical of her policies. However, her apperance, clothing, etc are not fair game.
 
LiberalPrincess said:
The word isn’t inherently sexist. What I find to be a bit sexist is people being critical of Hillary’s laugh, clothing choices, etc.

Would male candidates get this much scrutiny and ridicule on these matters? I don’t think so.
Click to expand...
How about the sexuality of black males who don’t toe the liberal party line?
 
Jeanne_S said:
It seems to me that for the liberal Catholic,their alligience to the Dem party trumps their Catholic faith,manipulatiing Church doctrine to comply with their political beliefs.
I have said this before but I really do believe that for conservative Catholics,their faith dictates which political party they support.Faith first!👍
Click to expand...
Quite the contrary, I think it is the conservative Catholics whose party allegiance is in conflict with key church teachings, especially on matters concerning the poor, the immigrant and economic justice.
 
Contarini said:
This is just crazy. I know it’s what the far-right Republican echo chamber tells itself, but it’s completely out of touch with what most people in this country think.

What you’re really saying is that the Republican right wing is willing to sabotage its own side rather than elect a Republican moderate. That’s what’s been happening. And depending on the issue, it may be the right thing to do. But as a matter of political analysis, it makes no sense to say that the answer is to nominate a more conservative candidate. That’s just giving into the “blackmail” of the right wing (again, this “blackmail” isn’t necessarily morally wrong–it may be the morally noble thing to do on some issues). It won’t attract most independents.

Edwin
Click to expand...
The Republican Party has been pandering to the so called moderates,(which in most cases translates into really being liberal lite,NOT conservative lite) for awhile and where has that gotten the party? .John McCain,really a dem in rep clothing and a whole host of others’ like him.Nope,better to stand for something,with the possibility and perhaps likelihood of losing,than to lose by being weak kneed,hoping against hope we can pull off a win.
The political profile of this Country has changed due largely to the entitlement mindset of so many,that it will probably take living out the ruionous policies of the left for people to finally wake up.Unfortunately,by then it could take generations to turn things around.😦
 
Holly3278 said:
Thanks for explaining Ishii. I am not very familiar with the rest of the candidates but I do like Paul Ryan. I don’t really like his foreign policy though. It seems to be too similar to George Bush Jr’s.
Click to expand...
To be fair, I think Paul Ryan has a bit more knowledge that Bush Jr. in that regard. Have you ever read Pat Buchanan’s book? W had zero knowledge of foreign affairs before he was sworn in.
 
LiberalPrincess said:
Quite the contrary, I think it is the conservative Catholics whose party allegiance is in conflict with key church teachings, especially on matters concerning the poor, the immigrant and economic justice.
Click to expand...
Conservatives overwhelmingly donate more time and money to helping the poor than liberals. So your statement is incorrect.
 
LiberalPrincess said:
The word isn’t inherently sexist. What I find to be a bit sexist is people being critical of Hillary’s laugh, clothing choices, etc.

Would male candidates get this much scrutiny and ridicule on these matters? I don’t think so.
Click to expand...
Absolutely! The mannerisms of candidates are always scrutinized. People ridiculed Reagan, Bush, Clinton, GW and they ridicule Obama. If you have a fault, it will be noticed. If you have a loud cackle, it will be noticed. If you dip into a ridiculous southern drawl when speaking to a crowd, it will get noticed.

Hillary Clinton was dreadful on the campaign trail. Will she do better this time? Perhaps. But, then you have the age issue. I think Biden and Clinton, if they run, will have a tough time due to the age issue.
 
Contarini said:
Because “cackling” evokes pejorative images of old women, perhaps even witches.

The hidden message behind these kinds of criticisms is that women have to be young and beautiful or they aren’t worth taking seriously.

Edwin
Click to expand...
I have no hidden message, Edwin.

Her cackle is off-putting, as was her fake southern drawl she used in one of her appearances.

Age is an issue for both sexes. It doesn’t have anything to do with being taken seriously. It has to do with the rigorous demands of the job, and the desire of the population to have a president who will survive two terms. Being elected at age 69 means potentially serving as president until age 81. McCain ran when he was 72, and a lot of people were concerned about his age.
 
LiberalPrincess said:
Quite the contrary, I think it is the conservative Catholics whose party allegiance is in conflict with key church teachings, especially on matters concerning the poor, the immigrant and economic justice.
Click to expand...
Catholics can have differing views on i.e. immigration, tax, health care and infalliable teaching that Catholics can not differ on i.e. abortion, marriage, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning
  • 1 Catholic says there should be stricter immigration laws and illegal immigrants should be deported, another Catholic says illegal immigrants should be legalised, neither are in disobedience with the Church
  • 1 Catholic supports a flat tax, another supports a fairtax, neither are in disobedience with the Church as the Church does not official doctrine on tax
  • 1 Catholic supports universal health care, another Catholic supports private only health care, neither are in disobedience with the Church. Church does not have doctrine on what health care system there should be
  • 1 Catholic supports abortion access, another Catholic does not support abortion, the Catholic that supports abortion is in clear disobedience because the 4th commandmeent says 'thou shall not kill and Church teaching in the Catechism says all human life is sacred (2258)
  • 1 Catholic supports homosexual marriage, another Catholic supports traditional marriage. Catholic that supports homosexual marriage is in disobedience with the Church because 2360 in the Catachesm says that, ‘sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament’ and 1919 says, ‘it is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society, its citizens, and intermediate bodies’
  • 1 Catholic supports embryonic stem cell research, another Catholic does not. Catholic that supports embryonic stem cell research is in disobedience with the Church because
  • 2270 in the Catechism says, ‘human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life’
  • 1 Catholic supports human cloning, another does not. Catholic that supports human cloning is in disobedience with the Church, see Catechism verses cited above on human life
 
CrossofChrist said:
I support Ryan…or I guess Christie.

Someone who has a brain with at least a remote shot of winning. I don’t really like Christie but at least he is popular and is intelligent.
Click to expand...
He’s a realist who knows how to deal with real life issues like hurricanes, women’s rights groups, unions, encouraging business, etc.
 
ProVobis said:
He’s a realist who knows how to deal with real life issues like hurricanes, women’s rights groups, unions, encouraging business, etc.
Click to expand...
Of all those listed, I think that Christie is the only one with a realistic chance. Neither party has a very deep bench at this point. All the shenanigans in DC have made them look ridiculous, and many governors are virtual unknown nationally.

It will be very interesting if Hillary doesn’t run.
 
SaintAugustine said:
I have no hidden message, Edwin.

Her cackle is off-putting, as was her fake southern drawl she used in one of her appearances.

Age is an issue for both sexes. It doesn’t have anything to do with being taken seriously. It has to do with the rigorous demands of the job, and the desire of the population to have a president who will survive two terms. Being elected at age 69 means potentially serving as president until age 81. McCain ran when he was 72, and a lot of people were concerned about his age.
Click to expand...
um, you mean 77 or 78? 81 would imply three terms, not two. Terms are 4 years. 4 x 2 =8 years.

If the media told the WHOLE truth and people would wake up, Hilary wouldn’t even get 5 votes - she was a disgrace in regards to Benghazi.
 
LiberalPrincess said:
Yes, I reject personal attacks on ALL women politicians.
Click to expand...
Wait, as a progressive, liberal champion of equality shoildn’t you have said “I reject personal attacks on all people regardless of gender, profession, or ideology”? Or are you okay with personal attacks on men or attacks that undermine the dogmatic beliefs of your own professed religion?
 
jediliz said:
um, you mean 77 or 78? 81 would imply three terms, not two. Terms are 4 years. 4 x 2 =8 years.

If the media told the WHOLE truth and people would wake up, Hilary wouldn’t even get 5 votes - she was a disgrace in regards to Benghazi.
Click to expand...
Oops. 😊

Um…I was thinking Senate years…yeah…that’s it. ;)😛
 
oldcelt said:
Of all those listed, I think that Christie is the only one with a realistic chance. Neither party has a very deep bench at this point. All the shenanigans in DC have made them look ridiculous, and many governors are virtual unknown nationally.

It will be very interesting if Hillary doesn’t run.
Click to expand...
Not surprisingly, I disagree. The GOP has a much better crop of candidates that 2012:

Compare:

2012:

Rick Santorum
Newt Gingrich
Mitt Romney
Rick Perry
Michelle Bachman
Ron Paul
Herman Cain
Jon Huntsman

Basically two flawed candidate with a lot of baggage - Romney and Newt. And a bunch of also rans.

2016:

Chris Christie
Marco Rubio
Bobby Jindal
Rand Paul
Paul Ryan
Scott Walker
Jeb Bush

I believe the above group is much more capable than the 2012 group.

Ishii
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top