Hillary won't get the nomination

Getting more votes doesn't matter. The argument was never about who got more votes between Clinton/Gore and Gore/Lieberman it was about who won the state.

You know what, I think it's really sad that neither you or Damo can admit you lost an argument.

You kept wanting to know WHY Gore couldn't win Tennesee, when Clinton HAD.

I just showed both of you.

Usually I am just kidding around with you guys, but I am dead serious.

This was pathetic, and there's no point in arguing with either one of you if you are both going to be so transparently dishonest.
 
I agree he took more from the right. But just today, Jarod and Cypress both told me that it was EVENLY distributed across party lines.

It doesn't change that it was certainly possible for him to win in Tennessee. And that the previous D President did so, twice.

Jarod and Cypress said that Perot voters were evenly distributed? Well, I don't have time lately to read even 1/4 of the posts on here, and I didn't see it, and frankly, I don't care. All you need to do is look at the context of the 92 election. The dems had been out of the white house for 12 years, they wanted it back badly. They had no incentive to go 3rd party, in general. However, Republicans were coming off of the Sr. presidency whom they felt personally betrayed by. Perot splintered the R vote, grabbing fiscal conservatives. IN general.

As for your second sentence here, when Clinton in 92 got 42% of the vote, and Gore got 49 percent of the vote in 2000, to keep repeating like some goddamned parrot "clinton won twice squak sqauk clinton won twice, squak squak clinton won twice sqauk sqauk" is dishonest.

Laughably dishonest.
 
Jarod and Cypress said that Perot voters were evenly distributed? Well, I don't have time lately to read even 1/4 of the posts on here, and I didn't see it, and frankly, I don't care. All you need to do is look at the context of the 92 election. The dems had been out of the white house for 12 years, they wanted it back badly. They had no incentive to go 3rd party, in general. However, Republicans were coming off of the Sr. presidency whom they felt personally betrayed by. Perot splintered the R vote, grabbing fiscal conservatives. IN general.

As for your second sentence here, when Clinton in 92 got 42% of the vote, and Gore got 49 percent of the vote in 2000, to keep repeating like some goddamned parrot "clinton won twice squak sqauk clinton won twice, squak squak clinton won twice sqauk sqauk" is dishonest.

Laughably dishonest.
What is dishonest is pretending that an effort to win his previous constituency was 'impossible'. That is dishonest. They voted for him previously in a Statewide election. There is clear evidence that they would vote for him in a Statewide election.

Pretending it is insignificant that he cannot get even the constituency of his home state to vote for him is what is dishonest.
 
What is dishonest is pretending that an effort to win his previous constituency was 'impossible'. That is dishonest. They voted for him previously in a Statewide election. There is clear evidence that they would vote for him in a Statewide election.

Pretending it is insignificant that he cannot get even the constituency of his home state to vote for him is what is dishonest.

See, this is what you do, you always change your argument in mid-stream after you have lost your point.

It's dishonest.

You have been harping on Gore losing Tn, which he should have won because Clinton won it twice.

And once I show that the circumstances were so different, and Gore won such a higher percentage of the vote than Clinton did, then you switch horses and claim, wellll he won the senate race!

Dishonest. YOu can't stand to concede a point, and I always back down not because as your male mind has decided, "I agree with you but only inside my own head, and won't admit it", but because I don't want to drag on and on and on.

But I'm not doing it here.

YOu're wrong, you were shown to be wrong, and don't even think your'e going to your standard trick of changing the argument without even conceding the point.

I'm not playing.
 
I still can't over the fact that BB called me a socialist.


I did not call you a socialist..just said if you prefer the British parlimentary system move to England either join the Labour party or the BNP...depending on your choice...either socialist or akin to ours..:rolleyes:
 
Look dip shit twit.............

No one ever knows.

Just be happy you're not a woman, because then he would end his incoherent post with "are you wearing underwear?"


I have never said anything like this..I do believe this would fit more along the lines of your kissing damos butt when ya get in trouble...then hint about your loveliness and what you would do to him...this can be tracked back...but your comment about how I end my posts is pure make believe on your spinster life part.....:cof1:
 
Last edited:
You know what, I think it's really sad that neither you or Damo can admit you lost an argument.

You kept wanting to know WHY Gore couldn't win Tennesee, when Clinton HAD.

I just showed both of you.

Usually I am just kidding around with you guys, but I am dead serious.

This was pathetic, and there's no point in arguing with either one of you if you are both going to be so transparently dishonest.

I am not being dishonest so maybe we are just seeing two different things. I do not know what your breakdown of the votes was suppose to show or prove.
 
See, this is what you do, you always change your argument in mid-stream after you have lost your point.

It's dishonest.

You have been harping on Gore losing Tn, which he should have won because Clinton won it twice.

And once I show that the circumstances were so different, and Gore won such a higher percentage of the vote than Clinton did, then you switch horses and claim, wellll he won the senate race!

Dishonest. YOu can't stand to concede a point, and I always back down not because as your male mind has decided, "I agree with you but only inside my own head, and won't admit it", but because I don't want to drag on and on and on.

But I'm not doing it here.

YOu're wrong, you were shown to be wrong, and don't even think your'e going to your standard trick of changing the argument without even conceding the point.

I'm not playing.


Maybe I am slow to the dance on this one. Are you arguing that if it weren't for Ross Perot Clinton/Gore would not have won Tennessee in '92 and '96 and therefore it is unrealistic to think Gore would win Tennessee in 2000?
 
I find it fascinating that GOPers are claiming they were helpless in denying bush the presidency...and its the Dems fault for not winning tennessee.

There was nothing Gore did, that "forced" republican's hands to reach for the lever to pull for bush. They could have voted for someone else, or simply withheld their vote from bush. Especially in 2004, when it was obvious bush was a disaster for the country.

Lets compare the democratic response to their incumbent presidents, who were unpopular and mired in horrible foreign entanglements:

LBJ: 1968-Vietnam. resigned. Democrats got rid of him.

Carter: 1979-80. Iran. Democrats mounted a vigorous primary challenge to him (ted kennedy) to dislodge carter from the white house. In the general election, many dems chose to vote for John Anderson, and even Ronald Reagan, rather than reward Carter with another term.

Bush: 2004 - Iraq. Republicans supported Bush almost universally, not once making a peep about a primary challenge to him, or even considering withholding their vote from him. Or voting for someone else.


Party over Country.
 
I find it fascinating that GOPers are claiming they were helpless in denying bush the presidency...and its the Dems fault for not winning tennessee.

There was nothing Gore did, that "forced" republican's hands to reach for the lever to pull for bush. They could have voted for someone else, or simply withheld their vote from bush. Especially in 2004, when it was obvious bush was a disaster for the country.

Lets compare the democratic response to their incumbent presidents, who were unpopular and mired in horrible foreign entanglements:

LBJ: 1968-Vietnam. resigned. Democrats got rid of him.

Carter: 1979-80. Iran. Democrats mounted a vigorous primary challenge to him (ted kennedy) to dislodge carter from the white house. In the general election, many dems chose to vote for John Anderson, and even Ronald Reagan, rather than reward Carter with another term.

Bush: 2004 - Iraq. Republicans supported Bush almost universally, not once making a peep about a primary challenge to him, or even considering withholding their vote from him. Or voting for someone else.


Party over Country.

What Republican here is claiming they tried to deny Bush the Presidency? Blackascoal is the only one here man enough to speak the truth. The election was Gore's to lose. He lost. You can cry all you want about it but your boy lost (and I'm not talking popular vote, we don't elect President's by popular vote).
 
The election was Gores to lose? Heck some say he could not even win TN...
I guess that is a new twist on blame avoidance. A bit better than "At least I did not vote for Kerry"

Some even say Gore won....
 
BAC, I respect your opinions.

But, they are not the only valid options.

Nobody on this board has better progressive street cred than Senator Bernie Sanders - and he chooses to caucus with, and work with the Democratic Party. He chooses to work within the system for change.

Here's what I ask myself: in order to get some form of increased, perhaps even universal, healthcare coverage, for working americans, which of the following scenarios is more likely to achieve that:

1) A filibuster-proof 60 seat Democratic senate, plus a Democratic president?

2) Or voting Green, and handing the senate and whitehouse to the GOP.

For me, its really that simple. But, I have no problem with progressives who choose to work outside the system for small, third parties.

I respect your opinions as well my brother, but doesn't the current crop of hapless democrats speak volumes about expecting results from democrats? Did you not expect them to end this war and bring our troops home? Is that not what they were elected and restored to power to do?

The excuse that republicans are mean and it's their fault that there hasn't been more progress on this most critical issue is bullshit, as I'm sure you are aware. They could cut off the funding .. and the bullshit excuse that Americans don't want that has been nothing but an excuse for political cowardice. Americans want our troops home even if it means cutting off the funding, and bringing our troops home is the sane, honest, and correct thing to do regardless of political fingers in the wind.

Building an effective third party is not easy I grant you, but in my opinion, continuing to be played the fool isn't smart, nor does it demonstrate any political will.

Like you, I believe Americans should have nationalized healthcare just like all the other industrialized nations on the planet. However, I also believe that the injustice of the criminal injustice system needs to be addressed with the quickness as it is devastating African-Americans communities and families. Addressing that evil isn't even on the democrats radar because they don't want to be seen as "soft on crime", thus, the Democratic Party itself perpetuates the stereotype and doesn't care about what has traditionally been their most loyal constituency. It has nothing to do with being soft on crime and everything to do with being committed to justice and addressing the disparities in arrests and sentencing. Democratic capitulation to this evil is sick and disgusting .. but most democratic constituents who call themselves "liberals" don't truly give a fuck either and have and will do abso-fucking-lutely ZERO to push their party to do the right thing.

As with the Jena Six case, blacks fight their battles alone. If it does not impact white people, neither the Democratic Party nor so-called liberals can be counted on for support .. other than lip-service .. YET .. come election time, both are counting on the negroes to show up at the polls and help send their politicians .. who don't give a fuck about the plight of African-American communities .. into office.

Personally, if there was a republican, like Jack Kemp, who seriously listened to the agenda I believe needs to be addressed, I would vote for that republican in a heartbeat. "D's" and R's" don't mean shit to me. I'm looking for politicians and agendas that make sense, not promises. The Green Party and its platform make a lot of senbse to me and I will continue to challenge blacks on why we continue to vote for a political party that is not hearing us. The good news is that blacks who identify themselves as democrats has been steadily declining since 2000 and now only about 60% of blacks call themselves democrats.

I do a lot of freelance writing, and a couple of years ago I wrote an article called "What if there was a party that gave you a reason to vote." I've considered posting it here, but don't because it is specific to black voters. I got more postive feedback from that article than any I've ever written.

For black voters there are two options .. vote for the democrat or don't vote at all. I'm doing my part to make a third option .. vote for a party that listens to you.

I look forward to the day when the Democratic Party can no longer count on black votes and they will have to actually work to get them.

Let me ask you .. is your vote going to be counted? Do you blame republicans for not ensuring your vote will be counted or do you blame the party you vote for whose responsibility is to make sure their constituents votes get counted?
 
Last edited:
I respect your opinions as well my brother, but doesn't the current crop of hapless democrats speak volumes about expecting results from democrats? Did you not expect them to end this war and bring our troops home? Is that not what they were elected and restored to power to do?

The excuse that republicans are mean and it's their fault that there hasn't been more progress on this most critical issue is bullshit, as I'm sure you are aware. They could cut off the funding .. and the bullshit excuse that Americans don't want that has been nothing but an excuse for political cowardice. Americans want our troops home even if it means cutting off the funding, and bringing our troops home is the sane, honest, and correct thing to do regardless of political fingers in the wind.

Building an effective third party is not easy I grant you, but in my opinion, continuing to be played the fool isn't smart, nor does it demonstrate any political will.

Like you, I believe Americans should have nationalized healthcare just like all the other industrialized nations on the planet. However, I also believe that the injustice of the criminal injustice system needs to be addressed with the quickness as it is devastating African-Americans communities and families. Addressing that evil isn't even on the democrats radar because they don't want to be seen as "soft on crime", thus, the Democratic Party itself perpetuates the stereotype and doesn't care about what has traditionally been their most loyal constituency. It has nothing to do with being soft on crime and everything to do with being committed to justice and addressing the disparities in arrests and sentencing. Democratic capitulation to this evil is sick and disgusting .. but most democratic constituents who call themselves "liberals" don't truly give a fuck either and have and will do abso-fucking-lutely ZERO to push their party to do the right thing.

As with the Jena Six case, blacks fight their battles alone. If it does not impact white people, neither the Democratic Party nor so-called liberals can be counted on for support .. other than lip-service .. YET .. come election time, both are counting on the negroes to show up at the polls and help send their politicians .. who don't give a fuck about the plight of African-American communities .. into office.

Personally, if there was a republican, like Jack Kemp, who seriously listened to the agenda I believe needs to be addressed, I would vote for that republican in a heartbeat. "D's" and R's" don't mean shit to me. I'm looking for politicians and agendas that make sense, not promises. The Green Party and its platform make a lot of senbse to me and I will continue to challenge blacks on why we continue to vote for a political party that is not hearing us. The good news is that blacks who identify themselves as democrats has been steadily declining since 2000 and now only about 60% of blacks call themselves democrats.

I do a lot of freelance writing, and a couple of years ago I wrote an article called "What if there was a party that gave you a reason to vote." I've considered posting it here, but don't because it is specific to black voters. I got more postive feedback from that article than any I've ever written.

For black voters there are two options .. vote for the democrat or don't vote at all. I'm doing my part to make a third option .. vote for a party that listens to you.

I look forward to the day when the Democratic Party can no longer count on black votes and they will have to actually work to get them.

Let me ask you .. is your vote going to be counted? Do you blame republicans for not ensuring your vote will be counted or do you blame the party you vote for whose responsibility is to make sure their constituents votes get counted?

You're right, but many whites don't know about what's going on within our prisons. I knew that the death penality was not applied with disregard to race. And I knew that profiling happens, a few other things, but I really had no idea the extent of the problem, or how systemic it was until I read the things you posted here. So that helps.

As far as looking forward to the day that the democrats have to work for the black vote, I'd be thrilled to see it too. It can only mean they'd have to stop pandering to the so-called "swing voter" and that could only be good news for me.
 
You're right, but many whites don't know about what's going on within our prisons. I knew that the death penality was not applied with disregard to race. And I knew that profiling happens, a few other things, but I really had no idea the extent of the problem, or how systemic it was until I read the things you posted here. So that helps.

As far as looking forward to the day that the democrats have to work for the black vote, I'd be thrilled to see it too. It can only mean they'd have to stop pandering to the so-called "swing voter" and that could only be good news for me.

If republicans were smarter and one or more of them would have come to the Tavis Smiley forum and laid out a specific plan to address the injustice of the criminal system, they could break that 25% threshold of black votes that they've been looking for.

Blacks have always been against this war and have never fell for the lies and deceptions of Bush .. but we weren't listened to .. so most don't think too much of the 11th hour awakening the rest of the country is realizing. Our families and communities are paramount and on the top of our agenda.

Greens not only think of that injustice, it's in their platform and has been for years.

Without coalition with people of conscience like you, everything is harder.

I understand your perspective about Gore, but I do not share them. Democrats avoid looking in the mirror just as much as republicans.

Gore chose Joe Lieberman as his running mate .. how much more clear can the failures of Gore possibly be? How can republicans be blamed for such an incredible intellectual and philosophical failure?

Instead of engaging in after-thought about could he have won, shouldn't intellectually honest examination of failure be more germaine to moving this nation forward? Wouldn't that kind of introspective also be in order for democratic voters who claim to be antiwar but are about to elect Hilary Clinton who has never seen a war she doesn't like? You tell me, how in the hell is that even possible?

In many ways, the Democratic Party is quite appropriate for their constituency because both are seriously lacking in the political courage and principle that is called for in the Declaration of Independence.

I most certainly do not mean to imply you my sister.
 
See, this is what you do, you always change your argument in mid-stream after you have lost your point.

It's dishonest.

You have been harping on Gore losing Tn, which he should have won because Clinton won it twice.

And once I show that the circumstances were so different, and Gore won such a higher percentage of the vote than Clinton did, then you switch horses and claim, wellll he won the senate race!

Dishonest. YOu can't stand to concede a point, and I always back down not because as your male mind has decided, "I agree with you but only inside my own head, and won't admit it", but because I don't want to drag on and on and on.

But I'm not doing it here.

YOu're wrong, you were shown to be wrong, and don't even think your'e going to your standard trick of changing the argument without even conceding the point.

I'm not playing.
I didn't "lose", nor did I change my argument. You have attempted six ways to Sunday to pretend that Gore had "no chance at all" in his home state. This is a dishonest argument. How close the vote was there pretty much shores up my assertion that he could have won his home state had he actually worked at it instead of blitzing Florida.

It is bullocks. And if he had won his own state, if the people who elected him three times for office before had voted for him, he would have won the Presidency. And historically, nobody has ever won the Presidency without taking their home state.

No matter how many times you attempt to restretch a new excuse over this guy, it is simply the truth. The people who had elected him before in a statewide election had a history of voting for him. He most certainly had a shot at winning in his home state. Instead he ignored it, lost his previous constituency and it was a mistake in his campaign.

Had he not made that mistake there never would have been a second President Bush.

I have simply addressed strategy in this thread, you seem to take it for a personal attack or something. The go for Florida strategy only sufficed to create a controversy that wouldn't exist if he had actually attempted to keep his previous constituency in his camp. Which he most certainly could have done. Really, it is not even close to "dishonest" to suggest it was a bad strategy that lost him the WH. It is obvious to me that it was.

And it is extremely dishonest to pretend that he couldn't get people who already voted for him to vote for him again. It is, in fact, preposterous to assume he had no chance at all there when he very nearly got it as it stands. The election in other states where he actually had no shot certainly didn't have him with 49% of the vote.

Your argument is weak, it certainly hasn't "won" anything, and it keeps attempting to pull another excuse for a guy who made mistakes during his campaign and lost to a guy who couldn't seem to pull a sentence together.

As it stands, you have fully convinced me that he had a rock solid chance to win his home state, just based on the results you posted. It wasn't nearly that close in Colorado, or other states where he actually had no chance.
 
Back
Top