Minotaur029 wrote:Clinton would destroy Romney. Period.

It's really hard to tell at this point. Both are pretty slick in their own way. Both have changed their positions in ways that make people suspect something other than a sincere changing of the mind. Both have problems with more radical wings of their party. Romney was able to win in a state one wouldn't think of as being supportive of his party. Clinton less so but to some extent.

I still worry about Hillary's high negatives. Something like 40%+ of those polled have said they would never vote for her regardless of who she runs against. She can likely cut into that somewhat.

The trump card might be Bill Clinton. Even at the height of his problems he had a 60% approval rating. And he still does. You won't find someone more savvy about national politics than him. And he is highly motivated to help Hillary win any way he can.

Still, if I was a bookie, I'd be really nervous about setting a line at this point.

*Giuliani* is a different story. She can beat him for sure...unless another 9/11 happens between now and then.

alex maiolo wrote:All religion is full of crazy stories, the Mormons are guilty of nothing more than theirs being, apparently, too recent to be valid. It's OK that Moses parted the Red Sea thousands of years ago, but Smith talked to God in the 1800s? Now that's just crazy talk!

yea but on top of the wacko "our dude talked to god, and not even that long ago" business, mormons have a messed up history with racial issues. essentially they think that god views blacks as lesser, and that slavery was a punishment/curse sent from god because blacks had "hardened their hearts against him" (thats a direct quote from the book of mormon). simply put, mormons are racist with a really extensive racist history.

The entire US has an extensive racist history. Some churches had doctrine justifying slavery. There was some question in many white's minds as to whether blacks were fully human or whether they had souls. This was somewhat reflected in the original constitution

But blacks are no longer slaves. And blacks can be, and some are, Mormons.

galanter wrote:The entire US has an extensive racist history. Some churches had doctrine justifying slavery. There was some question in many white's minds as to whether blacks were fully human or whether they had souls. This was somewhat reflected in the original constitution

But blacks are no longer slaves. And blacks can be, and some are, Mormons.

yea but youre talking about some churches. i'm talking about the original text (i quoted directly from the book of mormon) that the entire mormon religion follows. its racist. do they still use/worship this text? i think so. enough said.

sure, blacks can be, and some are, mormons. similarly, blacks can be, and some are, republicans.

BClark wrote:

alex maiolo wrote:All religion is full of crazy stories, the Mormons are guilty of nothing more than theirs being, apparently, too recent to be valid. It's OK that Moses parted the Red Sea thousands of years ago, but Smith talked to God in the 1800s? Now that's just crazy talk!

yea but on top of the wacko "our dude talked to god, and not even that long ago" business, mormons have a messed up history with racial issues. essentially they think that god views blacks as lesser, and that slavery was a punishment/curse sent from god because blacks had "hardened their hearts against him" (thats a direct quote from the book of mormon). simply put, mormons are racist with a really extensive racist history.

Read all of the chapters in Leviticus and get back to me.

-A

Blacks could not be ordained as Mormon priests until 1978. Also, the U.S. has a racist present. Not saying anyone here doesn't know this, but it's worth repeating. And repeating.

As for the end of slavery, leaving aside the disproportionate number of blacks toiling in the lowest quarters of wage slavery, the U.S. incarcerates nearly 6 times as much of its black male citizenry as did apartheid South Africa. More than 1 in 4 young black males serves jail time in the U.S. The U.S., in fact, locks up more of its population than any other nation on earth, and about half are black. China, Russia, Iran, Zimbabwe, Burma--none holds a candle. This is worth thinking about.

Gotta love a for-profit prison system. A gulag for the niggers.

I doubt Obama would do any more to change this situation than Romney, I'm afraid.

alex maiolo wrote:He's Christian, but he's also kind. He believes in creationism, but doesn't think it excludes evolution - which is one of many ways to define "intelligent design," a very misunderstood term by the Left.

I would just like to say that 'intelligent design' isn't misunderstood at all, It has and always will be complete horseshit.

P.S. - Mitt Romney is crap.

galanter wrote:

Minotaur029 wrote:Clinton would destroy Romney. Period.

It's really hard to tell at this point. Both are pretty slick in their own way. Both have changed their positions in ways that make people suspect something other than a sincere changing of the mind. Both have problems with more radical wings of their party. Romney was able to win in a state one wouldn't think of as being supportive of his party. Clinton less so but to some extent.

I still worry about Hillary's high negatives. Something like 40%+ of those polled have said they would never vote for her regardless of who she runs against. She can likely cut into that somewhat.

The trump card might be Bill Clinton. Even at the height of his problems he had a 60% approval rating. And he still does. You won't find someone more savvy about national politics than him. And he is highly motivated to help Hillary win any way he can.

Still, if I was a bookie, I'd be really nervous about setting a line at this point.

*Giuliani* is a different story. She can beat him for sure...unless another 9/11 happens between now and then.

Giuliani has the best shot against Clinton...seeing as we probably will not see a Huckabee miracle comeback (though a good showing in Iowa could change that pretty damn quick). In the polls, only he comes close.

Bill Clinton was not just at 60% during the height of his "troubles"...he was at 62 and 63%...hot damn!!

Knowing the polls...knowing Mitt Romney (I've followed him for years since ever since I knew he was itching to be a presidential candidate in the aftermath of '04)...I maintain that Clinton would destroy Romney. Period.

a-rod wrote:THAT is the strategy for this election - run someone who isn't going to get out the hate-the-candidate anti-vote.

Alex...you are right...to an extent. Hillary would indeed get the "haters" to work triple shifts...but any Democrat would do that. Obama or Richardson...even Edwards would not deserve the "get out the hate" bum rush...but the Republicans would still get out there and tear to shreds any Democrat that gets the nomination.

Remember Max Cleland? (spelling?...in any case, the triple Vietnam amputee/former Georgia senator). There's a man who got fucked by the Republican machine for being nothing but a man in an opposing party...hard. I'm shaky on his voting record, but wasn't he fairly moderate??

Any Democrat (with the exception of Hillary Clinton) would annihilate the Republican candidate...alas, I don't think anybody is going to stop Hillary. I am so angry that an opportunity to actually change the way the country is being run is being squandered.

My girlfriend and I are talking about moving to Ireland/the U.K. after I finish grad school. It's looking like a better idea all the time. I never felt the need to leave this country, but the consolidation of power/BUSH has got me convinced that bad shit is about to go down...I just don't know what.

Giuliani is doing well because nobody is attacking him where he can be hurt. The public doesn't really know him yet.

His own kids won't speak with him. His personal life has been a mess. The Republican base will be very apathetic because many of them consider him to be a closet Democrat when it comes to "values." So he will likely have to swing further right to win the Republican nomination, and that will allow Clinton to take the middle (which she is already well on the way to accomplishing, and that's what swings the election).

The Bernie Carrick scandal will come back to haunt him, and there are likely more where that came from. The Dems will be going over his consulting business with a fine toothed comb. He has a bad temper and shoots from the hip, and at some point that's going to hurt him. And it's not at all clear that he really understands the America outside of NYC. Clinton does. And Clinton & Clinton even better. A lot of folks in the south and midwest don't trust New Yorkers. Hillary can selectively present an Arkansas face, an Illinois face, and even a New York face. She can probably even beat Giuliani in New York state.

Giuliani a one trick pony. Security. That's it. If things get better in Iraq people will worry less about security and feel less of a need for him. If things get worse, he will have to defend the war and will be associated in peoples minds with Bush. Either way it hurts him.

This is why I say as long as there isn't another 9/11, Clinton can take Giuliani. No problem.

galanter wrote:Giuliani is doing well because nobody is attacking him where he can be hurt. The public doesn't really know him yet.

His own kids won't speak with him. His personal life has been a mess. The Republican base will be very apathetic because many of them consider him to be a closet Democrat when it comes to "values." So he will likely have to swing further right to win the Republican nomination, and that will allow Clinton to take the middle (which she is already well on the way to accomplishing, and that's what swings the election).

Guliani has nearly zero support from the evangelical right, and neither does Romney at this point simply by virtue of being Mormon.

The evangelical right is cracking up under its own weight anyway.