Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 faith2565
Joined: 3/25/2006
Msg: 333
view profile
History
The Hillraisers just won't foldPage 13 of 26    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26)
Let this go! Hillary did a great job. We do not know what happen to Mark. It is time for this thread to be closed. We need to move on!
 flyonthewall!
Joined: 3/31/2008
Msg: 334
The Hillraisers just won't fold
Posted: 8/26/2008 8:40:08 PM
Yes we DO know what happened to Warner. From the Washington Post:


Warner has always presented himself as a bipartisan or post-partisan figure, and while much of that is mere rhetoric, it nonetheless resonates with those who view him as a reasonable person and no-nonsense businessman. Warner made it clear that he has no intent of acting as a Democratic attack dog.

He says he told Obama's people from the start that "if they want a slash and burn, contrasting speaker, that's not me." Warner's obviously not going to run away from Obama, but neither is he likely to traverse the state bashing McCain--at least not too hard, given that his whole shtick is that he draws (and needs) independent and Republican votes.


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2008/08/_virginia_really_doesnt_matter.html

I agree with you that Hillary did a great job. It's just not the kind of great job that's going to help Obama.

And this thread doesn't need to be closed as long as "the Hillraisers just won't fold". That will be an ongoing topic through the election.
 faith2565
Joined: 3/25/2006
Msg: 336
view profile
History
The Hillraisers just won't fold
Posted: 8/26/2008 8:45:05 PM
The media puts such spins on everything. And yes, it is time to close this forum. We need to heal and come together. The time of trashing Obama and helping feed the media's fire needs to stop. Yes, be hurt. I would be hurt also if it were the other way around and spoke openly about that in the past, but when Hillary is trying to bring this to an end then it needs to end. Better yet, start a forum Hillary supporters for McCain. Then you do not have to bash Obama, but can just support each other.
 flyonthewall!
Joined: 3/31/2008
Msg: 337
The Hillraisers just won't fold
Posted: 8/27/2008 7:51:15 AM
As far as I'm aware there has been only ONE Hillraiser in this thread, and that would be me. Hillraisers were contribution bundlers who raised $100K and more for Hillary.

Given there were only a few hundred, it's unlikely that there are others anywhere in the threads.

And your point is?
 faith2565
Joined: 3/25/2006
Msg: 338
view profile
History
The Hillraisers just won't fold
Posted: 8/27/2008 8:37:05 PM
The Clintons have both put if full support of Obama. Please start a Hillary supporters for McCain forum.
 flyonthewall!
Joined: 3/31/2008
Msg: 339
The Hillraisers just won't fold
Posted: 8/27/2008 8:46:40 PM
This thread will do just fine. A Hillary supporters for McCain thread is REDUNDANT.

The Clintons have no choice but to support Obama, they're Democrats. But this thread ISN'T about the Clintons. It's about Hillary Clinton supporters who will not vote for Obama. Some will abstain, some will vote for McCain.
 exodusi1
Joined: 8/19/2006
Msg: 340
view profile
History
All Hillary supporters shift to Obama
Posted: 8/27/2008 9:02:10 PM
Film at eleven. . .
 SteelCity1981
Joined: 8/16/2005
Msg: 341
view profile
History
The Hillraisers just won't fold
Posted: 8/27/2008 9:09:52 PM
This reminds me of the Reagan democrats. No matter what, there are still going to be 20% or so of Hillary supporters that will still vote for McCain after today. those hillary supporters still feel that they got robbed by the DNC and the democratic leaders of Flrorida and Mich by having Mich and Florida split the count, in which those supporters didn't want, but instead have all the delegates from Mich and Florida go to her. So, it looks like from here on out there is nothing Obama nore the DNC can do to get them back. Good news for McCain though.
 exodusi1
Joined: 8/19/2006
Msg: 342
view profile
History
Again
Posted: 8/28/2008 3:32:29 AM
True Hillary supporters well ALL vote for Obama, the only ones who are going to vote for McCain are the ones who are lyining about their support for her. . . If you believe in the same things Hillary believes in, you can't vote for another neocon. . . McCain has always tried to look different, but the Keating five incedent was in the 1980s, he has always been a tired and true neocon, he just hid it well because Arizona likes mavericks.

But, even Arizona isn't considered a stronghold for McCain. . . McCain has an 8 point lead right now, and begining next weekend, I will be working to get as many people, regarless of party affiliation (Unlike republican operatives), registered to vote. I am going to make sure AZ becomes a blue state like it should be!
 SteelCity1981
Joined: 8/16/2005
Msg: 343
view profile
History
Again
Posted: 8/28/2008 4:37:09 AM
I think the whole Obama "Clinch their guns and religion" statement kind of pissed off a lot of conservative democrats to begin with, and then not adding the FL and Mich delegates to Hillary was just adding more insult to injury to some of those diehard Hillary supporters, even though it wasn't his fault. This now pretty much gives you that 30%+ conservative democratic total figure that won’t be voting for Obama.

McCain was never a true republican, he is like Obama in the same sense of not being a true democrat. You have a liberal/republican vs. a liberal/democrat.
 SteelCity1981
Joined: 8/16/2005
Msg: 344
view profile
History
Again
Posted: 8/28/2008 4:52:07 AM
McCain a true republican? Come on yeah he shares some of the same views, but there are a lot of views that he doesn't share like the illegal immigration issue, that's just one example. I mean I can name at least 10 more easy that McCain has fought republicans on. Just look at his senate record history vs. the other traditionalist republicans that he has fought against.

Oh Come on Obama is a liberal democrat again just look at his record history and compare them with traditional democrats.

But why are you defending it anyhow aren't you liberal? You’re acting like I’m saying Obama is really independent.
 exodusi1
Joined: 8/19/2006
Msg: 345
view profile
History
Again
Posted: 8/28/2008 4:53:27 AM
Ignorance is not only bliss, but it is a great tool to keep republicans in power.

Nuance escapes them!
 SteelCity1981
Joined: 8/16/2005
Msg: 346
view profile
History
Again
Posted: 8/28/2008 5:22:02 AM
That's because he was trying to make his run for the 08 election. He knew that if he changed his votes on things last year more republicans would start pulling for him during this election, because he knew if he didn't the same result would happen to him in the 2000 primaries. I don’t trust McCain’s real stance as far as I can throw him. I don’t believe this change BS in some of his policies that he has disagreed with for years but all of a sudden is now changing them just so he can get more votes. Just like the Iilegal immergration thing here was his quote " I listened to the people" You should have been doing that years ago and not just because you are all of a sudden running. This is why i don't trust a lot of his so called changes.

And that's what pisses me off; we have a lot of party leaders on both sides that haven't done crap. The only way things get changes if enough people demand it and threaten some of these politicians to get off their ass and do something or you’re out of a job come next election.
 SteelCity1981
Joined: 8/16/2005
Msg: 347
view profile
History
Again
Posted: 8/28/2008 5:27:56 AM
Yeah but if you looked at it last year boy he really laid it on good with agreeing with the party.

But hey i'll give him props though, he played it well and now he is the head guy for the rep party going into this election.
 TimPommell
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 348
view profile
History
Again
Posted: 8/28/2008 5:35:44 AM
Charles...

100% agreement in the last year, 95% agreement in the year before, he is the Republican party. You can protest all you want, but thats the statistics. 90% if you count all his votes from jan 2001. He is McSame, he is the Republican party, and the Republican party doesn't give a shit about illegal immigration, it cares about stiring up the racist elements in its base by talking about doing something about it.
Your analogy is somewhat myopic. There are three distinct factions in both parties, Liberal, Moderate and Conservative. Not all Republicans are pro-life, some are pro-choice, just as not all Democrats are pro-choice, some are pro-life. McCain, historically is conservative to moderate to liberal in his governing positions, so the traditionl pigeon holes do not apply to him just as they don’t apply to Bush … I can't speak to McCain’s personal feelings on any of the issues, but I can say that Bush, while conservative in personal positions has demonstrated only moderate and liberal tendencies with respect to leadership. That compromise in personal philosophy as it applies to political platforms is what is causing both parties to implode.


The Republican party had control of all branches of government for 6 years, and didn't do a damned thing about the issue.
Clinton had a supermajority and didn't get anything significant done like healthcare, what's your point?
 flyonthewall!
Joined: 3/31/2008
Msg: 350
Again
Posted: 8/28/2008 7:03:58 AM
Another way to rate is how conservative a politician is. John McCain's conservative rating is 85 percent, but it's been getting progressively lower over the years (with some swings back and forth). McCain's ACU rating for 2006 was just 66 percentl. You can see all his ratings since 1990 and how he voted on various issues here:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/mccains_acu_ratings.html
 TimPommell
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 351
view profile
History
Again
Posted: 8/28/2008 7:20:15 AM
One thing contained in the article you linked is:
"What this means is that McCain's ACU ratings since 1998 put him on the liberal side among Republicans. The few Republicans consistently more liberal than McCain would be Chafee (formerly R-RI), Collins (R-ME), Snowe (R-ME) and Specter (R-PA). One could expect senators from northeastern states to be more liberal since their constituencies demand it, but McCain represents the fairly conservative state of Arizona. (Arizona's other senator, Kyl, has a lifetime rating of 96.9, and half the representatives from there have ratings of 94.7 or higher.)"
That's a pretty decisive indicator that he is not a true conservative, but rather one who has no issue crossing party lines when legislation would have a negative impact on his constituents. The ACU ratings of Hillary and Obama, ranked 9th and 8th respectfully, are indicative that they are LESS likely to go against the party line when the issue of what is "more" right or "more" wrong applies to their constituents.

Is that an indication that he would be a better President, absolutely not, it does however indicate he is not just less polarizing, but more likely to encourage bi-partisanship than either of the former…

Just an opinion, I’m not voting for him, but feel it’s only fair when comparing records to be accurate and thorough….
 flyonthewall!
Joined: 3/31/2008
Msg: 352
Again
Posted: 8/28/2008 8:05:03 AM
^ ^ ^ ^ Then you don't know what a Hillraiser is. Hillraisers bundled large contributions (100K or more) to Hillary via fundraisers, calling influential friends, etc.

As I said, I did that while I was still up in NY. Believe me, don't believe me. Makes no difference.

I think the OP really meant Hillary supporters (now being referred to as Hillsters by the media), who refuse to support Obama in the election.

And I guess you don't have to believe that there are any Hillary supporters in this group either, but then we don't have to believe that you are a male from Canada.

So if you're not going to believe us, and therefore we wouldn't believe you, how's that going to help your chances in the dating world?
 cncgandolf
Joined: 7/29/2007
Msg: 354
view profile
History
Thread: The
Posted: 8/28/2008 8:41:57 AM
"Old scallywag Bill called on 18 million to go with him and Hillary to become Obamatrons, but I'm sure there'll be a number of them that don't. It's an individuals choice to vote for whoever they want to and then sit back and wait for those illustrious voting machines to spit out a winner.."

Had it gone the other way there were those who were supporting Obama in order to have the first African American president and not the principals that he and Hillary share. That isn't to say that they would have switched to McCain. That isn't to say that in the first month or two of dissappointment in losing they wouldn't have said they were going to switch to McCain and gotten over the disappointment and either not voted or voted for a third party candidate or even voted for McCain.

It is hard to imagine that anyone who shares Obama or Hillary's values would actually vote for McCain who clearly does not share their values. Regardless of party, if anyone is voting based upon the person one at least hopes it is the person's values they are aligning with.
 flyonthewall!
Joined: 3/31/2008
Msg: 356
Thread: The
Posted: 8/28/2008 9:00:25 AM
Slysterling -- Bill Clinton would have spoken til the cows came home if he'd been given the slot. Obama gave him 10 minutes to talk, and he took 30. Of course 10 minutes of that was the standing ovation.

I think both Hillary and Bill went beyond the call of duty. They said everything they could to encourage voters to cast their ballot for Obama. Bill Clinton even stretched the bounds of credibility by comparing his 12 years as governor to Obamas years at the local level.

cncgandolf --

You are forgetting about the entire moderate and conservative wing of the Democratic party. Not everyone is left wing like Obama and Biden. Hillary rates more to the center of the party, and she gets some of the same jibbing as McCain does for being bi-partisan.

For my part with the centrist from the Democratic party gone, I'll go with the centrist from the Republican party. I was always to the right of Hillary Clinton anyway.

But more importantly, trusting our future to someone with NO experience for the job is pure folly, and something that I won't do. Given the polls, it appears that the majority of the American people are slowly waking up to reality as well.

Normally you see a big bump during the convention, and so far there's been almost none. These are serious times and my opinion is that a lot of Democrats are waking up from the Obama induced coma and realizing we need a leader in that position, not some baby politician.

Even Biden's snorefest last night isn't enough to get voters to close their eyes again. But PLEASE, no more speeches from that man. It constitutes cruel and unusual punishment!
 exodusi1
Joined: 8/19/2006
Msg: 357
view profile
History
Thread: The
Posted: 8/28/2008 9:24:56 AM
If you can't say something nice. . . So I won't.

But suffice it to say, If someone doesn't like my politics, they wouldn't want to date me anyway and if someone isn't compassionate, I wouldn't want to date them either. . . I would rather be alone than with someone I don't respect. . . Again. . .
 TimPommell
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 359
view profile
History
Again
Posted: 8/28/2008 10:19:45 AM
Charles Charles Charles....
Forever attacking the poster and not the post….

Well for one it isn't an analogy. Don't use words you don't understand. LOL
Let's review.... you said:

100% agreement in the last year, 95% agreement in the year before, he is the Republican party. You can protest all you want, but thats the statistics. 90% if you count all his votes from jan 2001. He is McSame, he is the Republican party, and the Republican party doesn't give a shit about illegal immigration, it cares about stiring up the racist elements in its base by talking about doing something about it.
You cite voting patterns, then concluded that he is "McSame" I'm not sure what other word would accurately describe your analysis other than "analogy" but according to Webster’s, it’s pretty much the textbook definition of the word.


Anyway, what does this have to do with hillraisers? I still haven't seen one yet.
Then you’re not looking very hard, we actually have one participating in the thread….
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  >