NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, so apparently CNN is now reporting that Clinton has won Florida (even though she's the only one running) and Mc. Cain and Romney are fighting for first. This is with about 30% of the votes already in. Now I have got to ask, with Clinton being the only one running in Florida because she has no respect for the rules the Democratic Party has set up barring the Democratic Candidates from campaigning in Florida (or Michigan), should Hillary Win for Florida or Michigan even count even though she apparently (someone can correct me on this if they want) violated the rules the DNC has set up.

They should just bar her from the nomination. She can just run as an independant if she wants.

Ok, so apparently CNN is now reporting that Clinton has won Florida (even though she's the only one running) and Mc. Cain and Romney are fighting for first. This is with about 30% of the votes already in. Now I have got to ask, with Clinton being the only one running in Florida because she has no respect for the rules the Democratic Party has set up barring the Democratic Candidates from campaigning in Florida (or Michigan), should Hillary Win for Florida or Michigan even count even though she apparently (someone can correct me on this if they want) violated the rules the DNC has set up.

I think all the Democrats are running, they just didn't campaign. That is, there names showed up on the ballots, they just couldn't...I'm not really sure what constitutes "campaigning," but whatever it is they weren't allowed to do.

They should have just sucked it up and run on the ballot instead of engaging in this righteous shit.

Click Stand;13409324']They should just bar her from the nomination. She can just run as an independant if she wants.
This passes.

Bitch Clinton is already flying into the Ft. Lauderdale area to "not campaign".....She's such a whore. Atleast the other Dems were man enough to not punk out and come to Florida. What the fuck is wrong with her. What a two timing bitch.

Hope she dies.

Ok, now tell us how you really feel. ;)

The delegates from Florida will not count towards nomination, just like in Michigan. She didn't campaign in Florida, but plans to show up after it's over and give a speech, I guess sort of a victory, post election campaigning thang.

Anyway..I'm here and I'm waiting for the official results. Voting in Northern Florida is either still open or JUST starting to close.

Bitch Clinton is already flying into the Ft. Lauderdale area to "not campaign".....She's such a whore. Atleast the other Dems were man enough to not punk out and come to Florida. What the fuck is wrong with her. What a two timing bitch.

Hope she dies.

Bitch Clinton is already flying into the Ft. Lauderdale area to "not campaign".....She's such a whore. Atleast the other Dems were man enough to not punk out and come to Florida. What the fuck is wrong with her. What a two timing bitch.

Hope she dies.

Revealing. It's not really campaigning Florida if she does it after the polls close.

I don't like her, but this-this is a bit extreme.

Bitch Clinton is already flying into the Ft. Lauderdale area to "not campaign".....She's such a whore. Atleast the other Dems were man enough to not punk out and come to Florida. What the fuck is wrong with her. What a two timing bitch.

Hope she dies.

"I can be your hero, baby!"

The delegates from Florida will not count towards nomination, just like in Michigan. She didn't campaign in Florida, but plans to show up after it's over and give a speech, I guess sort of a victory, post election campaigning thang.



I guess after she got her ass handed to her in South Carolina she'll take whatever victory she can, even if it doesnt count;)

The delegates from Florida will not count towards nomination, just like in Michigan. She didn't campaign in Florida, but plans to show up after it's over and give a speech, I guess sort of a victory, post election campaigning thang.

So this is pretty much a Hallow Victory?

I gotta vent my frustration and hope for her death now...because in case she becomes President (:headbang:), I won't be allowed to say this kind of stuff anymore...isn't it a crime to call for the death of the President?


Yes, but you'll only be punished if A) your serious and B) the government chooses to take you as a serious threat and deal with you.

Revealing. It's not really campaigning Florida if she does it after the polls close.

I don't like her, but this-this is a bit extreme.
Technically not..but it really still is. I live here...She set up a HUGE organization party in Davie (a town near Ft. Lauderdale) in the town ballroom to raise support......It's 100% campaigning, just doing it in a way that she can get away with it.
The delegates from Florida will not count towards nomination, just like in Michigan. She didn't campaign in Florida, but plans to show up after it's over and give a speech, I guess sort of a victory, post election campaigning thang.
See above. The results arn't even in and she's already got it all planned out and is coming down.....It's campaigning.
Ok, now tell us how you really feel. ;)
I gotta vent my frustration and hope for her death now...because in case she becomes President (:headbang:), I won't be allowed to say this kind of stuff anymore...isn't it a crime to call for the death of the President?

So this is pretty much a Hallow Victory?

I don't know that it's even that. I don't know if anyone else was on the ballot-in Michigan a bunch weren't. Really, this is a Republicans only show right now. On to Super Tuesday.

Technically not..but it really still is. I live here...She set up a HUGE organization party in Davie (a town near Ft. Lauderdale) in the town ballroom to raise support......It's 100% campaigning, just doing it in a way that she can get away with it.

See above. The results arn't even in and she's already got it all planned out and is coming down.....It's campaigning.

I gotta vent my frustration and hope for her death now...because in case she becomes President (:headbang:), I won't be allowed to say this kind of stuff anymore...isn't it a crime to call for the death of the President?
Wow, you need to calm down a bit. Sheesh.

If it's after the ballot, then what effect to you expect it to have? She waited until after the election for the speech, but she's already stated she thinks that Florida should be counted and now shes backing up what shes been saying by showing up and telling Floridains that they matter while keeping her word not to campaign before the primaries. Yeah, it's a bit of a stunt-but that's all campaigning is, a series of stunts.

Hardly worth the frothing at the mouth you're doing.

"I can be your hero, baby!"
The bitch already set up a big party for her in the the major ballroom in Davie. Know where that is? It's a huggeee place, I've been there before. You know where Davie is, right?

Winning an non-counting primary is like hitting a homerun past the foul line pole. You can think you scored but you didn't.

This doesn't exactly go along with the theme of the thread, but McCain won the Republican primary, if anyone's interested.

It's funny, actually. The area where I live only has Ron Paul signs up, but he got...what, 0% votes?

This doesn't exactly go along with the theme of the thread, but McCain won the Republican primary, if anyone's interested.

It should be the theme, since it's the only result that matters.

This is an interesting if kind of foreseen development...
With 73 percent of Republican precincts reporting, McCain held a 36-31 percent lead over Romney. Giuliani had 15 percent of the vote, followed closely by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee who held 14 percent.

A top campaign official from McCain's camp has been in "ongoing discussions" with Giuliani's campaign about endorsing McCain's candidacy, a GOP official familiar with talks told CNN Tuesday.
CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/29/fl.primary/index.html)...look, it has the fewest letters in the url...

It's funny, actually. The area where I live only has Ron Paul signs up, but he got...what, 0% votes?
Looks like Giuliani may drop out...why doesn't it say what Ron Paul got? I can't find it.....

So this is pretty much a Hallow Victory?

I see nothing sacred about the victory; I do think it's a hollow victory, however.

I was wondering, could it be that the Democrats decision not to have it count affected McCains win? It appears independents like him more than the other Republican's, and independents wouldn't be likely to vote in the Democratic primaries if it counts for nothing. Correct me if theres some huge fact that completley invalidates this.

Looks like Giuliani may drop out...why doesn't it say what Ron Paul got? I can't find it.....

You can go here - http://www.politico.com/

Ron Paul is at 3.21% at the moment - seems 12 year olds can vote on the Internet but not in the elections.

I was wondering, could it be that the Democrats decision not to have it count affected McCains win? It appears independents like him more than the other Republican's, and independents wouldn't be likely to vote in the Democratic primaries if it counts for nothing. Correct me if theres some huge fact that completley invalidates this.

Florida runs a closed primary system. Only people registered to a party can vote in their respective primaries.

You can go here - http://www.politico.com/

Ron Paul is at 3.21% at the moment - seems 12 year olds can vote on the Internet but not in the elections.

Zing!

Florida runs a closed primary system. Only people registered to a party can vote in their respective primaries.

Ah. Exactly the kind of overwhelming fact I was thinking of. Thanks.

You can go here - http://www.politico.com/

Ron Paul is at 3.21% at the moment - seems 12 year olds can vote on the Internet but not in the elections.

You may be on to something here. Maybe he only gets the 12 year olds' support because they think his wife makes those fishsticks they like so much.

Hey, it's a theory. :)

Ah. Exactly the kind of overwhelming fact I was thinking of. Thanks.

I try.

Here's my take on the FL primary...

Clinton won, hands down. New York retirees are responsible for this.

The GOP race is a bit more complex.
The Guiliani strategy failed utterly, because i he sacrificed his electability by forfeiting the other primaries.
McCain v Romney was close, but the McCain victory shows several things, and here's where my opinion starts to show...
First, it shows that Republicans in FL are more willing to vote for a Democrat than an actual Republican. (NYT article: "we support John McCain for the GOP nomination, despite his occassional panderings to the right.") While some complain that Romney flip-flopped on abortion and other social issues, McCain can clearly be seen to change positions on abortion, taxes (even though he changed his mind, he still doesn't understand why they are supposed to increase reciepts), and the much less important issue of freedom of speech (McCain/Feingold act). If anything, Romney is the one that the GOP should be falling over itself to nominate. Really don't understand McCain's appeal for Republicans.

You may be on to something here. Maybe he only gets the 12 year olds' support because they think his wife makes those fishsticks they like so much.

Hey, it's a theory. :)

I have a feeling a good 80% of people who vote for Ron Paul think that it's actually Ru Paul.

Around 3% of the US population are cross dressers - coincidence?

Hey, it's a theory :)

I have a feeling a good 80% of people who vote for Ron Paul think that it's actually Ru Paul.

Around 3% of the US population are cross dressers - coincidence?

Hey, it's a theory :)

Yeah, well, you have to account that of the 3% of the population are cross dressers most of them are going to be concentrated in Miami, so I don't know...

Everyone was on the ballot, but they couldn't campaign. In Michigan only Hillary and the other minor candidates were on the ballot and I remember something about there being an agreement between the candidates to remove themselves from the ballot there.

I don't think she would've won by nearly as much, if at all, if it had been a regular primary. She's been making a big deal about making sure Michigan and Florida are counted for a while now.

Everyone was on the ballot, but they couldn't campaign. In Michigan only Hillary and the other minor candidates were on the ballot and I remember something about there being an agreement between the candidates to remove themselves from the ballot there.

I don't think she would've won by nearly as much, if at all, if it had been a regular primary. She's been making a big deal about making sure Michigan and Florida are counted for a while now.

Ever since South Carolina...imagine...

Actually, that's not fair-that's when I first heard of it, I don't know if she's been doing that before then...

Ever since South Carolina...imagine...

Actually, that's not fair-that's when I first heard of it, I don't know if she's been doing that before then...

Don't think so. I'm just hedging by not putting a specific date ;).

She's behind, her smear campaigns aren't working as well as she hoped, and she wants a buffer for Super Tuesday. Win at any cost is quickly becoming her campaign's slogan.

And my state's next on the list...

The whole Primary-but-we’re-ignoring-you thing is bizarre.

Welcome to the US primary system. We don't think it makes any sense either. :)

The whole Primary-but-we’re-ignoring-you thing is bizarre.

It's the democratic party trying to keep a hold on when each state can run their individual primaries. They want to be able to keep power over the schedules (I couldn't say why) and Florida and Michigan, both scheduled for Super Tuesday I believe, decided to go against the party and hold theirs early.

I agree it doesn't make much sense, but that's America for you.

The whole Primary-but-we’re-ignoring-you thing is bizarre.

I don't think she would've won by nearly as much, if at all, if it had been a regular primary.

yeah, her only solid wins thus far have been in states where no campaigning at all took place - otherwise known as name recognition tests. everywhere else has either been essentially a tie or a solid loss for her.

yeah, her only solid wins thus far have been in states where no campaigning at all took place - otherwise known as name recognition tests. everywhere else has either been essentially a tie or a solid loss for her.

I do have to admit, though, the results of Michigan made me smile. Clinton's the only major candidate on the ballot, it's a Michigan winter night, and 36% of the vote still went to "undecided."

yeah, her only solid wins thus far have been in states where no campaigning at all took place - otherwise known as name recognition tests. everywhere else has either been essentially a tie or a solid loss for her.

Aye, the victory is rather empty when the biggest competition was the Elf.

Welcome to the US primary system. We don’t think it makes any sense either. :)
I follow it up to a point, but it confuses me as to why any political party would want to prevent delegates choosing a nominee, or why a potential nominee would declare ‘victory’ in a non-existent contest.

And I thought the UK’s FPTP system was muddled...

They want to be able to keep power over the schedules (I couldn't say why) and Florida and Michigan, both scheduled for Super Tuesday I believe, decided to go against the party and hold theirs early.
Yeah, that's mainly what confuses me. Why would (a) the states want to go early, apart from the media spotlight, and (b) the party even care about the schedules?

Aren't the Dems basically showing the finger to their members in Florida and Michigan, and in turn the Reps to the few states they've vetoed?

I was wondering, could it be that the Democrats decision not to have it count affected McCains win? It appears independents like him more than the other Republican's, and independents wouldn't be likely to vote in the Democratic primaries if it counts for nothing. Correct me if theres some huge fact that completley invalidates this.

Why is it exactly that it doesn't count or whatever for the Democrats? Why aren't they allowed to campaign there? Is it a lasting grudge from the 2000 election?

I do have to admit, though, the results of Michigan made me smile. Clinton's the only major candidate on the ballot, it's a Michigan winter night, and 36% of the vote still went to "undecided."

IIRC, it was pretty mild on primary day. At least over here. On the good side of the state.

Anyway, I think alot of potential Non-Hillary democratic voters went and voted in the Republican primary. The raw numbers on the Democratic side were not that impressive, I think.

Yeah, that's mainly what confuses me. Why would (a) the states want to go early, apart from the media spotlight, and (b) the party even care about the schedules?


I think it's partly due to media spotlight, I mean look at all the attention states like Iowa and New Hampshire got, but also candidate attention. They want to know what the candidates will do for them personally and not just be another stop on the Super Tuesday trail.

This is, of course, speculation. I honestly have heard next to nothing about why Michigan and Florida did what they did.

*edit-Here's something I dug up: MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22054151/)

Democratic candidates John Edwards, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden have withdrawn their names from the ballot to satisfy Iowa and New Hampshire, which were unhappy Michigan was challenging their leadoff status on the primary calendar.

*edit-And something on Florida: NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/us/politics/04florida.html)

The new date puts the Florida primary ahead of contests in all but four states. Political leaders here hope it will give Florida, the most populous swing state, a bigger role in choosing presidential nominees.



Aren't the Dems basically showing the finger to their members in Florida and Michigan, and in turn the Reps to the few states they've vetoed?

Well, Florida usually goes Republican, IIRC, so that could be part of it.

IIRC, it was pretty mild on primary day. At least over here. On the good side of the state.

Wouldn't surprise me, I think I'm getting my news mixed with my NSG...

Anyway, I think alot of potential Non-Hillary democratic voters went and voted in the Republican primary. The raw numbers on the Democratic side were not that impressive, I think.

That, also, wouldn't surprise me. I know that, personally, if the Dems nominate Hillary, then the Rep candidate is going to look a lot more attractive.

I have a feeling a good 80% of people who vote for Ron Paul think that it's actually Ru Paul.

Around 3% of the US population are cross dressers - coincidence?

Hey, it's a theory :)

I'd support Ru Paul over Ron Paul any day, lol.

Yeah, that's mainly what confuses me. Why would (a) the states want to go early, apart from the media spotlight, and (b) the party even care about the schedules?

because early states have disproportionate impact on the nomination process. the later your primary, the less it matters. by the time south dakota has its, you already have a nominee.

Why is it exactly that it doesn't count or whatever for the Democrats? Why aren't they allowed to campaign there? Is it a lasting grudge from the 2000 election?

To punish them for moving their primary too early. In the last year there was this grand one-upmanship where states tried to move all of their primaries earlier so that their primary would actually matter (remember how every time the primaries finally got to California, the most populous state in the union, it was a foregone conclusion?) The by-laws of the parties (I believe) had restrictions on that but they weren't binding so the states moved themselves up and up and up. Both the Democrats and the Republicans warned that if they did that there would be consequences. Well, the only one they have the power to do is change the delegate status. At one point I thought that the Republicans had halved the Florida delegates but I haven't heard much about that recently. The Democrats removed the delegates.

Ultimately I think the parties will blink first. I don't think that Clinton will get her wish, but by the next go around I think that they will give the delegates rather than alienate constituents.

because early states have disproportionate impact on the nomination process. the later your primary, the less it matters. by the time south dakota has its, you already have a nominee.

We should have them in a shorter time frame, and later in the year. Shorter campaign time beforehand would be nice, too.

I think Rudy is the best choice, but in many ways I hope it is McCain, just so you can see all the weasels who were saying you had to elect John Kerry because he was a war veteran on the TV shows saying the opposite. They'll never be called on it though by the press. It will be like it never happened.

You all got a free pass on that little turn around, pretending all of a sudden that service didn't matter this time, so we'll consider it fair trade.

Why is it exactly that it doesn't count or whatever for the Democrats? Why aren't they allowed to campaign there? Is it a lasting grudge from the 2000 election?

months ago, the parties set the rules governing the order of their primaries or caucuses. one of the rules was nobody goes before feb 5th but iowa, new hampshire, south carolina, and nevada.
florida and michigan said "oh yeah, try and stop us".
the dnc said "done and done, no delegates for you if you do". "
"youse is bluffing"
"nope"
"aww man..."

I think Rudy is the best choice, but in many ways I hope it is McCain, just so you can see all the weasels who were saying you had to elect John Kerry because he was a war veteran on the TV shows saying the opposite. They'll never be called on it though by the press. It will be like it never happened.

months ago, the parties set the rules governing the order of their primaries or caucuses. one of the rules was nobody goes before feb 5th but iowa, new hampshire, south carolina, and nevada.
florida and michigan said "oh yeah, try and stop us".
the dnc said "done and done, no delegates for you if you do". "
"youse is bluffing"
"nope"
"aww man..."
I like your version better.

Ultimately I think the parties will blink first. I don't think that Clinton will get her wish, but by the next go around I think that they will give the delegates rather than alienate constituents.

they will almost certainly seat the delegates at the convention. there will be some deal reached before then, just for the sake of party unity.

I was asked by a TV guy (CW18, I think) about what I think about the primaries and about Giuliani's campaign...I mumbled something about how I am not impressed with any candidate and that Giuliani's way of scaring people with 911 won't work and he is gonna lose..:D

Don't know if they showed it or not :p

because early states have disproportionate impact on the nomination process. the later your primary, the less it matters. by the time south dakota has its, you already have a nominee.
I sees.

Thanking you.

Source Fox News, Fair Balanced and UnAfraid.
% s Provided by LHC.

Democratic Primary with 95 % of the Precints counted.

Clinton.... 840,628... 51.17 %
Obama.... 557,693....33.95 %
Edwards ..244,519....14.88 %
Totals.. 1,642,840...100.00 %

Republican Primary with 95 % of the Precints counted.

McCain... ...681,557.....36.62 %
Romney.. ....585,778.....31.48 %
Giuliani...... 277,281..... 14.90 %
Huckabee. 255,275.......13.72 %
Ron Paul.... 60,979.......03.28 %
Totals.....1,860,870....100.00 %

% s slightly rounded.

I like Math, History, Geography, Biographys, Accounting, Bookkeeping, % s, Economics, Politics, ect, ect.

Fox News is now on 98 % with similar results.

Referenced to Post 58.

Sorry, there are other candidates with less votes so the totals and % s are slightly different. I will post the last official results according to the Florida Dept of State.

Bitch Clinton is already flying into the Ft. Lauderdale area to "not campaign".....She's such a whore. Atleast the other Dems were man enough to not punk out and come to Florida. What the fuck is wrong with her. What a two timing bitch.

Hope she dies.
She will need Floridas' votes in the general election and her showing up after she has won makes tons of sense.

I gather she won't be getting your vote? :D

yeah, her only solid wins thus far have been in states where no campaigning at all took place - otherwise known as name recognition tests. everywhere else has either been essentially a tie or a solid loss for her.
Watch her fly on Super Tuesday. :D

Watch her fly on Super Tuesday. :D
Why do you want her to win?

From your posting history you seem to have really been opposed to Bush's policies, yet Clinton supported many of these before they became unpopular, and then reversed her positions when she realized it could hurt her, politically....

Doesn't seem like someone who generally shares your views...

While other ethnic, religious or social groups may also claim they might have put McCain on top in winning the Florida Republican Primary, we Cuban American voters have done it again, lol.

I myself voted for Rudy Giuliani but could easily have voted for John McCain instead.

I will vote Republican in the 2008 election no matter who wins the republican nomination.

I will return online sometime later tonight.

Cuban expatriates are a bunch of nuisance spoilers - they only care about who hates Cuba the most.

Why do you want her to win?

From your posting history you seem to have really been opposed to Bush's policies, yet Clinton supported many of these before they became unpopular, and then reversed her positions when she realized it could hurt her, politically....

Doesn't seem like someone who generally shares your views...
I support her because people like you want her to die. :p

In all seriousness, if you hate her that much, must mean that she is doing something that actually opposes your political bent, which borders on extreme right wing fascism.

I hate her because she is a left wing authoritarian "government-knows-best" kind of person who also has the morality of a bag of scum...

Woah. Let's not get TOO bi-partisan here...

Cuban expatriates are a bunch of nuisance spoilers - they only care about who hates Cuba the most.
They're good for something then...keeping the state red.

That, and bistec empanizado..;)
I support her because people like you want her to die. :p
In all seriousness, you didn't answer my question. You have so outspokenly been against Bush's policies, but yet you strongly support Clinton, who was FOR Bush's policies before they became unpopular....why? Where is the logic in that? Why her?
In all seriousness, if you hate her that much, must mean that she is doing something that actually opposes your political bent, which borders on extreme right wing fascism.
Man you are wrong on so many levels...and it proves you don't understand my politics nor the politics of the American people.

I hate her because she is a left wing authoritarian "government-knows-best" kind of person who also has the morality of a bag of scum....She has never been steadfast and consitant in her views..... Also, she is hated by many Democrats as well as Republicans and Independents.....not just "extreme right wing fascists"....

Speaking of what you call "right wing fascists"..it's funny because I generally favor a SMALL government and have only called for more government srength in the areas of immigration and border security...most other things I'd call for the shrinking of......and I don't support government control of our economy and production, nor do I support the federal government taking away the privacy of the individual and restricting freedom of speech and on top of all that I strongly support political freedom and am generally pissed off at the level of political apathy in this nation.

Which part of that classifies as "extreme right wing fascism"...because the kind of society I just laid out for you looks nothing like Italy in the 30's and 40's, which is the definition of extreme right wing fascism....

Feel free to respond anytime you figure out how.....

Woah. Let's not get TOO bi-partisan here...
.....?

Cuban expatriates are a bunch of nuisance spoilers - they only care about who hates Cuba the most.

Lol Not, we care about who hates Fidel and Raul most.

In all seriousness, you didn't answer my question. You have so outspokenly been against Bush's policies, but yet you strongly support Clinton, who was FOR Bush's policies before they became unpopular....why? Where is the logic in that? Why her?

Man you are wrong on so many levels...and it proves you don't understand my politics nor the politics of the American people.

I hate her because she is a left wing authoritarian "government-knows-best" kind of person who also has the morality of a bag of scum....She has never been steadfast and consitant in her views..... Also, she is hated by many Democrats as well as Republicans and Independents.....not just "extreme right wing fascists"....

Speaking of what you call "right wing fascists"..it's funny because I generally favor a SMALL government and have only called for more government srength in the areas of immigration and border security...most other things I'd call for the shrinking of......and I don't support government control of our economy and production, nor do I support the federal government taking away the privacy of the individual and restricting freedom of speech and on top of all that I strongly support political freedom and am generally pissed off at the level of political apathy in this nation.

Which part of that classifies as "extreme right wing fascism"...because the kind of society I just laid out for you looks nothing like Italy in the 30's and 40's, which is the definition of extreme right wing fascism....

Feel free to respond anytime you figure out how.....
Actually, I was thinking more along the German model of the '30's and 40's. Let's see now:

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, religious attributes. The key attribute of fascism is intolerance of others: other religions, languages, political views, economic systems, cultural practices, etc. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to political and economic liberalism.
To say that you "strongly support political freedom", is laughable at best. Your rants prove otherwise. :p

And you are probably right on one thing in that I don't understand the politics of the American people, given that you gave Bush two terms to destroy your country.

BTW, I don't buy the Clinton flip flop that you Bushies keep trying to sell.

While other ethnic, religious or social groups may also claim they might have put McCain on top in winning the Florida Republican Primary, we Cuban American voters have done it again, lol.

I myself voted for Rudy Giuliani but could easily have voted for John McCain instead.

About 50 % of Cuban Americans voted for John McCain, many of whom were going to vote for Rudy Guiliani.

Not only the endorsement of John McCain by Florida Gov Charlie Christ help but the endorsements of Illeana Ros-Lehtinen, Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Mel Martinez help McCain when Rudi Guiliani's poll numbers began to drop.

I will vote Republican in the 2008 election no matter who wins the republican nomination.

On the anti Cuba anti Fidel issue, I dont trust Hillary Clinton and she is a democrat too, so that is at least two strikes against her. I think she can betray the Cuban Americans just as fast as slick Willy Bill Clinton did with Elian Gonzalez for which Al Gore paid the price.

In a sense we Cuban Americans are similar to the African Americans, we cant go en-mass for the democrats just like the African Americans cant go en-mass for the Republicans.

Yes, we are tired of empty republican anti Castro talk without delivering results and yet we are taking one more chance at it but the democrats offer us even worse.

Full economic relations with the Cuban government dictatorship without any conditions on real democratic changes in Cuba, the same policy as the EU and other nations that has not worked.

I never here any democrats talk of democratic changes in Cuba for better USA relations, just trade and better USA - Cuban government relations.

I would actually support no restrictions of Cuban Americans to visit thier families in Cuba and sending$ at a reasonable limit $ despite the fact that it not only helps Cuban familys but the Cuban dictatorship as well if I thought it would undermine the Cuban dictatorship but so far that policy has not worked.

Because that policy also serves to keep the population content enough that is one of the reasons the Cuban dictatorship government legalized the $ and Euro, the reason for the so-called Dollar stores financed by Cuban Americans family remittances $ nothing more than a form of ransom $.

Sorry for getting to deep into the Cuba, Fidel issue.

According to this source NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

Four in 10 Edwards supporters said their second choice in the race is Clinton, while a quarter prefer Obama, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo poll conducted late this month. Both Clinton and Obama would welcome Edwards' backing and the support of the 56 delegates he had collected.

Posted by LHC, I always expected about 50 % of Edwards supporters to back Obama but according to these sources thats not the case. So it looks like Hillary has the field wide open now to the Democratic nomination if that poll source holds up.

If or when Hillary gets the democratic nomination, since Obama is the only other candidate left standing with a decent amount of delegates at that, there is going to be alot of presure at the democratic convention for Hillary to offer Obama the Vice Presidential nomination.

What do you all think if Hillary wins the nomination will that be the democratic ticket Hillary Clinton - Obama? Can she afford not to offer the Vice spot to Obama? How well the African American vote react if she does not offer Obama the Vice spot?

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
11 minutes ago

DENVER - Democrat John Edwards is exiting the presidential race Wednesday, ending a scrappy underdog bid in which he steered his rivals toward progressive ideals while grappling with family hardship that roused voters' sympathies, The Associated Press has learned.

The two-time White House candidate notified a close circle of senior advisers that he planned to make the announcement at a 1 p.m. EST event in New Orleans that had been billed as a speech on poverty, according to two aides. The decision came after Edwards lost the four states to hold nominating contests so far to rivals who stole the spotlight from the beginning — Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

The former North Carolina senator will not immediately endorse either candidate in what is now a two-person race for the Democratic nomination, said one adviser, who spoke on condition of anonymity in advance of the announcement. Clinton said Wednesday that Edwards called her to inform her about his decision.

Obama told reporters Edwards had exited the race in a "classy" way. "I think he's run a great campaign," said Obama, who aides said also spoke with Edwards Tuesday night and asked for his endorsement.

In a statement from his campaign, Obama said Edwards "spent a lifetime fighting to give voice to the voiceless and hope to the struggling, even when it wasn't popular to do or covered in the news."

"While his campaign may end today, the cause of their lives endures for all of us who still believe that we can achieve that dream of one America," the statement said.

Four in 10 Edwards supporters said their second choice in the race is Clinton, while a quarter prefer Obama, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo poll conducted late this month. Both Clinton and Obama would welcome Edwards' backing and the support of the 56 delegates he had collected.

Edwards waged a spirited top-tier campaign against the two better-funded rivals, even as he dealt with the stunning blow of his wife's recurring cancer diagnosis. In a dramatic news conference last March, the couple announced that the breast cancer that she thought she had beaten had returned, but they would continue the campaign.

Their decision sparked a debate about family duty and public service. But Elizabeth Edwards remained a forceful advocate for her husband, and she was often surrounded at campaign events by well-wishers and emotional survivors cheering her on.

Edwards planned to announce his campaign was ending with his wife and three children at his side. Then he planned to work with Habitat for Humanity at the volunteer-fueled rebuilding project Musicians' Village, the adviser said.

With that, Edwards' campaign will end the way it began 13 months ago — with the candidate pitching in to rebuild lives in a city still ravaged by Hurricane Katrina. Edwards embraced New Orleans as a glaring symbol of what he described as a Washington that didn't hear the cries of the downtrodden.

Edwards burst out of the starting gate with a flurry of progressive policy ideas — he was the first to offer a plan for universal health care, the first to call on Congress to pull funding for the war, and he led the charge that lobbyists have too much power in Washington and need to be reigned in.

The ideas were all bold and new for Edwards personally as well, making him a different candidate than the moderate Southerner who ran in 2004 while still in his first Senate term. But the themes were eventually adopted by other Democratic presidential candidates — and even a Republican, Mitt Romney, echoed the call for an end to special interest politics in Washington.

Edwards' rise to prominence in politics came amid just one term representing North Carolina in the Senate after a career as a trial attorney that made him millions. He was on Al Gore's short list for vice president in 2000 after serving just two years in office. He ran for president in 2004, and after he lost to John Kerry, the nominee picked him as a running mate.

Elizabeth Edwards first discovered a lump in her breast in the final days of that losing campaign. Her battle against the disease caused her husband to open up about another tragedy in their lives — the death of their teenage son Wade in a 1996 car accident. The candidate barely spoke of Wade during his 2004 campaign, but he offered his son's death to answer questions about how he could persevere when his wife could die.

Edwards made poverty the signature issue of both his presidential campaigns, and he led a four-day tour to highlight the issue in July. The tour was the first to focus on the plight of the poor since Robert F. Kennedy's trip 40 years earlier.

But even as Obama and Clinton collected astonishing amounts of money that dwarfed his fundraising effort, Edwards maintained a loyal following in the first voting state of Iowa that made him a serious contender. He came in second to Obama in Iowa, an impressive feat of relegating Clinton to third place, before coming in third in the following three contests.

The loss in South Carolina was especially hard because it was where he was born and he had won the state in 2004.

At Edwards headquarters in Chapel Hill, N.C., two staffers debated on how best to answer the phones, saying "John Edwards for president" no longer seemed appropriate.

Associated Press Writer Mike Baker in North Carolina contributed to this report.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_pantless_hero
Cuban expatriates are a bunch of nuisance spoilers - they only care about who hates Cuba the most.
Posted by LHC : Lol Not, we care about who hates Fidel and Raul the most.
Posted by The Atlantian islands :
They're good for something then...keeping the state red.

That, and bistec empanizado..

Lol, great post by the Atlantian islands.

Heh, that was the worst non-answer I've ever seen. So, you totally skipped my question, which was:

In all seriousness, you didn't answer my question. You have so outspokenly been against Bush's policies, but yet you strongly support Clinton, who was FOR Bush's policies before they became unpopular....why? Where is the logic in that? Why her?

Actually, I was thinking more along the German model of the '30's and 40's. Let's see now:
Wow...Fascists also believe in government healthcare and social programs...as do you! You must be a fascist because you share some ideas of Fascism!

Now, let's see:

Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to political and economic liberalism.
Hmm considering I DISAGREE with the majority of the pillars of Fascism, by definition, I am not and cannot be a fascist. You lose.

To say that you "strongly support political freedom", is laughable at best. Your rants prove otherwise. :p
Oh really? How so? Proof, please.

BTW, I don't buy the Clinton flip flop that you Bushies keep trying to sell.
Well, now we're all clear with what you don't buy....but let's get back to reality. 1. I'm not a "bushy", but keep calling me names so that you don't have to actually use logic. 2. Why do you think so many Democrats hate her also?

Read: It's full of back and forths:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Iraq_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Security_vs._human_rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Anti-terrorism_and_domestic_surveillance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Habeas_Corpus

She's exactly the same authoritarian as Bush is...except that she is a Left Wing authoritarian instead of a right wing one....

Lol, great post by the Atlantian islands.
Gracias. Vives en Miami?

Lol Not, we care about who hates Fidel and Raul most.
That's basically the same thing..lol

I strongly support political freedom

To say that you "strongly support political freedom", is laughable at best. Your rants prove otherwise. :p

Oh really? How so? Proof, please.
Like I said before, your rants prove otherwise:


I hate her because she is a left wing authoritarian "government-knows-best" kind of person who also has the morality of a bag of scum....She has never been steadfast and consitant in her views.....

Bitch Clinton is already flying into the Ft. Lauderdale area to "not campaign".....She's such a whore. Atleast the other Dems were man enough to not punk out and come to Florida. What the fuck is wrong with her. What a two timing bitch.

Hope she dies.
That is truly not the mark of anyone who "strongly supports political freedom". Which takes me back to this:

The key attribute of fascism is intolerance of others: other religions, languages, political views, economic systems, cultural practices,

The very fact that you want her to die, strongly suggests to me that she is anything other than Bush like, as you so strongly want to paint her.

Clinton stands for the "political freedoms" you detest.

That was quite possibly the worst response I've ever seen. You didn't address my point on Clinton's voting history, nor did you address my points on the pillars of Fascism....what was even the point in responding?

Basically, you just told me: "TAI, you're correct and I don't know how to respond, that's why I won't."

Now, let's see:

Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to political and economic liberalism.
Hmm considering I DISAGREE with the majority of the pillars of Fascism, by definition, I am not and cannot be a fascist. You lose.



BTW, I don't buy the Clinton flip flop that you Bushies keep trying to sell.
Well, now we're all clear with what you don't buy....but let's get back to reality. 1. I'm not a "bushy", but keep calling me names so that you don't have to actually use logic. 2. Why do you think so many Democrats hate her also?

Read: It's full of back and forths:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Iraq_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Security_vs._human_rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Anti-terrorism_and_domestic_surveillance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Habeas_Corpus

She's exactly the same authoritarian as Bush is...except that she is a Left Wing authoritarian instead of a right wing one....

BTW, I don't buy the Clinton flip flop that you Bushies keep trying to sell.

She definitely flip-flopped on Florida. At first, she was slamming Obama for daring to buy nationwide ads that would actually run in Florida - a move his campaign ran by the DNC. Now that she's "won" the excluded states, she's actively pushing to have their delegates seated at the convention....

So rules only matter when someone else isn't breaking them but she wants to pretend they are. They get thrown out the window when breaking them would help her.

because early states have disproportionate impact on the nomination process. the later your primary, the less it matters. by the time south dakota has its, you already have a nominee.

Not to mention the money all the campaigning brings in.

Well, now we're all clear with what you don't buy....but let's get back to reality. 1. I'm not a "bushy", but keep calling me names so that you don't have to actually use logic. 2. Why do you think so many Democrats hate her also?

Read: It's full of back and forths:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Iraq_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Security_vs._human_rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Anti-terrorism_and_domestic_surveillance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Habeas_Corpus

She's exactly the same authoritarian as Bush is...except that she is a Left Wing authoritarian instead of a right wing one....

Um. Even taking the Wikipedia article at face value, I don't see the flip-flops, the agreement with Bush, or the authoritarianism you seem to find in Clinton's record on these issues.

For example, on Habeas Corpus, the article (which you linked) states:

Clinton spoke against and voted "no" on the Military Commissions Act,[95][96] which changed pre-existing law to explicitly forbid the invocation of the Geneva Conventions when executing the writ of habeas corpus or in other civil actions. As of June 23, 2007, Clinton has not said whether she supports the Senate bill 576, which would repeal portions of the Military Commissions Act.[96] She has signed on as a co-sponsor of the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act in 2007.[97]

On that issue, I see (1) consistency, (2) opposition to the positions of the Bush administration, and (3) a preference for liberty rather than authoritarianism.

She definitely flip-flopped on Florida. At first, she was slamming Obama for daring to buy nationwide ads that would actually run in Florida - a move his campaign ran by the DNC. Now that she's "won" the excluded states, she's actively pushing to have their delegates seated at the convention....

So rules only matter when someone else isn't breaking them but she wants to pretend they are. They get thrown out the window when breaking them would help her.

That is far from fair.

First, there is a difference between the dispute over whether one of the candidates broke the agreement that candidates would not campaign in Florida and the dispute over whether the delegates from Florida should be seated.

Second, Clinton called for the Florida delegates to be counted before she won the Florida primary.

Assuming Clinton originally agreed with the DNC that Florida's delegates should not count (a point about which I admit my ignorance), then it is fair to say she changed that position -- most probably based on a forecast that she would win Florida. Additional evil on her part need not be assumed.

That is far from fair.

First, there is a difference between the dispute over whether one of the candidates broke the agreement that candidates would not campaign in Florida and the dispute over whether the delegates from Florida should be seated.

Indeed, but they are quite similar as well. Both have to do with DNC rules - the rules under which Democrats went into this primary season - rules which each of the candidates agreed to.

And, while the commercial did not break the rules - and the DNC confirmed that before it ran, seating the delegates would be changing the rules in the middle of the process - something that is unfair to the candidates.

And, before someone goes off about it, yes, it would be equally unfair if Obama had won those states.

Second, Clinton called for the Florida delegates to be counted before she won the Florida primary.

Assuming Clinton originally agreed with the DNC that Florida's delegates should not count (a point about which I admit my ignorance), then it is fair to say she changed that position -- most probably based on a forecast that she would win Florida. Additional evil on her part need not be assumed.

I think that's bad enough "Ooh! I'm winning states that aren't supposed to be counted! Lets change the rules to give me an advantage! But I'm going to feign outrage over 'rule breaking' that isn't any such thing when it's not in my favor."

Um. Even taking the Wikipedia article at face value, I don't see the flip-flops, the agreement with Bush, or the authoritarianism you seem to find in Clinton's record on these issues.

For example, on Habeas Corpus, the article (which you linked) states:

Clinton spoke against and voted "no" on the Military Commissions Act,[95][96] which changed pre-existing law to explicitly forbid the invocation of the Geneva Conventions when executing the writ of habeas corpus or in other civil actions. As of June 23, 2007, Clinton has not said whether she supports the Senate bill 576, which would repeal portions of the Military Commissions Act.[96] She has signed on as a co-sponsor of the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act in 2007.[97]

On that issue, I see (1) consistency, (2) opposition to the positions of the Bush administration, and (3) a preference for liberty rather than authoritarianism.

Well on the Habeas Corpus part, I was refering more to this:
"Clinton has not signed the American Freedom Agenda's pledge to end the use of military commissions to prosecute war crimes, restore habeas corpus, end torture of captives, end domestic wiretapping without a warrant, and end presidential signing statements."

Or the fact that she voted for the patriot act, but then said how troubled she was about how much executive power the Bush administration has....

Or when she voted for the Iraq war, but then constantly criticized the administration's war in Iraq and such.

Basically the fact that she is running on a campaign for "change", when, looking at her political positions and voting history, we can see that she gives us no reason to be beleive that if she were elected any of this would change..... She and Bush are both highly Authoritarian (government knows best) kind of people, only Bush is right wing Authoritarian and she is left wing authoritarian....