NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm less than convinced Clinton couldn't win against McCain. Frankly, after the predictions that Obama would wipe Clinton off the map today, I don't think I'll weigh many of the opinions I hear. I prefer to form my own.

I am highly amused to see the "massive grassroots support" Ron Paul was supposed to dominate somehow got lost on the way to the polling places.

I am highly amused and relieved to see the "massive grassroots support" Ron Paul was supposed to dominate somehow got lost on the way to the polling places.

fixed

Something actually has to have a remote chance of happening before one can be "relieved" because it didn't.
Good point
It's like being "relieved" that the entirety of existence didn't spontaneously turn into Skittles today. That was a close one!

:( But, but, I like Skittles.

Something actually has to have a remote chance of happening before one can be "relieved" because it didn't.

It's like being "relieved" that the entirety of existence didn't spontaneously turn into Skittles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skittles_%28confectionery%29) today. That was a close one!

No, we just turned into M&Ms today. Tomorrow is the day we turn into Skittles. *nods*

fixed

Something actually has to have a remote chance of happening before one can be "relieved" because it didn't.

It's like being "relieved" that the entirety of existence didn't spontaneously turn into Skittles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skittles_%28confectionery%29) today. That was a close one!

Frankly, after the predictions that Obama would wipe Clinton off the map today

who made those?

Something actually has to have a remote chance of happening before one can be "relieved" because it didn't.

It's like being "relieved" that the entirety of existence didn't spontaneously turn into Skittles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skittles_%28confectionery%29) today. That was a close one!

Hey, hey, it could happen. About the same probability as a total existence failure...

It seems to be coming down to New Mexico for the Democrats and it's neck and neck.

I think it's important because the difference between the states being 13-8 for Obama compared to 12-9 is psychologically huge.

Clinton can downplay 12-9 by pointing to California and New York but if it's 13-8, she has less of a claim to any kind of victory.

Right now it's a difference of about 400 votes with 37% precincts counted, edging in Obama's favour.

As much as I admire Kyronea's diligence in terms of updating the figures, this site is timely and easy to follow: www.politico.com

who made those?

I second this question. I just looked through the pre-election predictions and even the ones who said Obama said it would be close, and lo and behold, it was close.

There's a whole lot of makin' up the past that seems to go on...I've had it-no more "People said" or whatever of that nature without an actual link to a person or people saying it. No more bullshit, dammit.

Dem's taking the white house? Jeez, if i wanted nuclear winter i'd ask for it.

There is no appropriate reason to hate ron paul, atleast i don't see one, please elaborate on why YOU hate him, as i have not heard one sensible reason to hate him yet.

He's a loon who's economic policies would destroy the nation?

Clinton's moved ahead in New Mexico with 54% of precincts in, a good 1, 000 votes ahead though.

My maths was wrong as well, I forget lonely Alaska, which went to Obama, so it's the difference between 13-9 and 14-8, my point, I think, still remains.

Clinton's moved ahead in New Mexico with 54% of precincts in, a good 1, 000 votes ahead though.

My maths was wrong as well, I forget lonely Alaska, which went to Obama, so it's the difference between 13-9 and 14-8, my point, I think, still remains.

Pfff...no one cares what Alaska thinks...

80% in and 300 votes in it, Clinton only inches ahead - I'm guessing New Mexico is proportional representation but the numbers in the media will still look stark in terms of states won.

It's damn slow counting though.

Call me names, paultard, paulbot, bottard, whatever the hell you children come up with to insult those who make smarter decisions than you, i don't care what you think, all i know is i'm for freedom.

Smarter decisions? Brave talk from someone who supports a person who used his office to ban Partial Birth Abortion even though he stated that it violates the Constitution and his oath of office.

The Republican Nominee is nearly clinched it looks like.

It looks like Obama is going to take New Mexico. He's up by 1 point with 92% reporting.

McCain's a lock, but Huckabee's done well enough to delay the inevitable. That plays right into Democrat hands because McCain will still be draining cash on a primary campaign he's really won.

Clinton's got the slight edge for me at present, but it's slight enough that I think Obama will come through and win it.

Obama-McCain would be quite a ride, but Obama-Huckabee, if that somehow happens? That'd be an ideological scrap to rival Sarkozy-Royal in France, no mean feat in a country with far more ideological consensus.

McCain's a lock, but Huckabee's done well enough to delay the inevitable. That plays right into Democrat hands because McCain will still be draining cash on a primary campaign he's really won.



And maybe cut a deal for his support. Maybe there's hope for tax reform, yet.

Good point, he might well have picked up support for FairTax or at least some kind of tax reform.

(Personally, my general view is that indirect taxation is preferable if one can avoid the trap of it being regressive...)

Smarter decisions? Brave talk from someone who supports a person who used his office to ban Partial Birth Abortion even though he stated that it violates the Constitution and his oath of office.

Do you, like, worship the Constitution or something?

Do you, like, worship the Constitution or something?

I pretty much do. The foundation of America is held within that document and after 8 years of Bush I'd like to see it restored. As for things we'd like to change about it, that's where ammendments come in. :)

He's a loon who's economic policies would destroy the nation?
And that isn't even to mention his want to destroy the federal system and our entire judicial system, recursively.


New Mexico is absurdly close considering Obama has been getting practically none of the hispanic vote - which is why Hillary is winning alot of states especially out west, and Florida.

I pretty much do. The foundation of America is held within that document and after 8 years of Bush I'd like to see it restored. As for things we'd like to change about it, that's where ammendments come in. :)

Fair enough, but I tend to agree with William Lloyd Garrison's assessment of it as "A covenant with death and an agreement with Hell."

Do you, like, worship the Constitution or something?

the point is that ron paul claims that he does, then he claimed that this bill they were voting on violated it, and then he voted in favor of it.

Pfff...no one cares what Alaska thinks...

or american samoa, apparently

Looks like Obama still came out ahead in pledged delegates, and there are lots of superdelegates out there who still haven't committed. He's got a great deal more money and many more supporters who haven't given the max. I wouldn't be surprised to see him take a high proportion of the remaining states.

Looks like Obama still came out ahead in pledged delegates, and there are lots of superdelegates out there who still haven't committed. He's got a great deal more money and many more supporters who haven't given the max. I wouldn't be surprised to see him take a high proportion of the remaining states.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7229895.stm
According to the BBC Obama's also got more states, but slightly less delegates, yet Clinton got some of the Democrat heartlands.
But more to come.
Washington: 9 February
Virginia: 12 February
Maryland: 12 February
Wisconsin: 19 February
Ohio: 4 March
Texas: 4 March
Pennsylvania: 22 April
North Carolina: 6 May
Go Obama.

the point is that ron paul claims that he does, then he claimed that this bill they were voting on violated it, and then he voted in favor of it.

I only ask because Corneliu keeps going "the Constitution this," or "the Constitution that." I mean, come on, people, it's a friggin' piece of paper, not a sacred text. And this is the same Constitution under which slavery, the internment of Japanese-, German-, and Italian-Americans during World War II, and conscription were/are allowed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7229895.stm
According to the BBC Obama's also got more states, but slightly less delegates, yet Clinton got some of the Democrat heartlands.


Hence the reason I said pledged delegates. Obama got more delegates from the actual voting. Clinton still has a lead in superdelegates, however.

According to cnn.com, Obama has 603 pledged delegates while Clinton has 590. However, Clinton currently has 193 superdelegates to Obama's 106.

I only ask because Corneliu keeps going "the Constitution this," or "the Constitution that." I mean, come on, people, it's a friggin' piece of paper, not a sacred text. And this is the same Constitution under which slavery, the internment of Japanese-, German-, and Italian-Americans during World War II, and conscription were/are allowed.Selective Service is still around, it just doesn't get used.

Selective Service is still around, it just doesn't get used.

The fact that the Constitution outlawed some forms of slavery, but not others (conscription) is yet another reason to loathe it.

Do you, like, worship the Constitution or something?

Do you like to see it dismantled or something?

Do you like to see it dismantled or something?

I'd like to see the whole federal government dismantled, but barring that, I'd be fine with replacing the Constitution with the Articles of Confederation.

Then perhaps instead of bemoaning the choices time after time, you should do something about it. Become politically active. Find some way to work your way into the power structure and change it from within. It's what I plan to do.

Then you better be careful what you say on this board. In 20 years The New Republic could be doing an article on you and there could be national accusations of you being a "troll" ;)

I'd like to see the whole federal government dismantled, but barring that, I'd be fine with replacing the Constitution with the Articles of Confederation.

What for? They were completely ineffective.

I'd like to see the whole federal government dismantled, but barring that, I'd be fine with replacing the Constitution with the Articles of Confederation.
Do you know why the Articles of Confederation were replaced with the Federal Constitution?

I only ask because Corneliu keeps going "the Constitution this," or "the Constitution that." I mean, come on, people, it's a friggin' piece of paper, not a sacred text.

You keep thinking that. If it was not a sacred text then we would have a shit load more problems than we do right now.

And this is the same Constitution under which slavery, the internment of Japanese-, German-, and Italian-Americans during World War II, and conscription were/are allowed.

Considering that conscription is not happening and can only be done through an act of Congress...

I'd like to see the whole federal government dismantled, but barring that, I'd be fine with replacing the Constitution with the Articles of Confederation.

You want the Articles back? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! That has got to be the most funniest statement I have ever read on this board! You really know nothing of American History don't you? The Articles were replaced because *gasp* THEY WERE NOT WORKING!!!!!

What for? They were completely ineffective.

Exactly. One of the most frequent complaints I hear is that they made the federal government "too weak." As if that were a bad thing.

You want the Articles back? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! That has got to be the most funniest statement I have ever read on this board! You really know nothing of American History don't you? The Articles were replaced because *gasp* THEY WERE NOT WORKING!!!!!

Don't give yourself a heart attack.

It's exactly because "THEY WERE NOT WORKING!!!!!" that I want them back.

Oh brother! Do you know that the nation nearly ceased to exist because of the Articles of Confederation?

I do.

So in other words, you want to see the desolution of the United States. Go figure.

Yes, I do favor the dissolution of the United States. And every other state.

Exactly. One of the most frequent complaints I hear is that they made the federal government "too weak." As if that were a bad thing.

Oh brother! Do you know that the nation nearly ceased to exist because of the Articles of Confederation? That was why there was a Convention to redo the articles and they wound up scrapping it.

Don't give yourself a heart attack.

It's exactly because "THEY WERE NOT WORKING!!!!!" that I want them back.

So in other words, you want to see the desolution of the United States. Go figure.

Good! Now I know not to take you seriously

Feeling's mutual, chum.

Ok. So I won't take any more of what you say seriously because it is quite obvious you do not have a clue as to what this would do to not only the country itself but to the entire planet.

I do indeed have a clue what it would do. Do you?

I do.

Good! Now I know not to take you seriously

Yes, I do favor the dissolution of the United States. And every other state.

Ok. So I won't take any more of what you say seriously because it is quite obvious you do not have a clue as to what this would do to not only the country itself but to the entire planet.

Not my fault that those of us who oppose a racist piece of shit actually have facts to back it up.

I didn't realize that "no one" (who I support) is a racist piece of shit.

Outside of mass economic fallout and bloodshed...

As opposed to how the world is now?

Feeling's mutual, chum.

Not my fault that those of us who oppose a racist piece of shit actually have facts to back it up.

I do indeed have a clue what it would do. Do you?

Outside of mass economic fallout and bloodshed...

Do you know why the Articles of Confederation were replaced with the Federal Constitution?

because the crypto-monarchists were horrified by the revolution they'd fostered?

How silly. Everyone knows that a massive military presence worldwide, supporting every tinpot despot with currency devaluation, and building up a political elite through the bludgeonings of bureaucracy and red tape while crushing everyone on the periphery is peace!

By golly, you're right. :p

As opposed to how the world is now?

How silly. Everyone knows that a massive military presence worldwide, supporting every tinpot despot with currency devaluation, and building up a political elite through the bludgeonings of bureaucracy and red tape while crushing everyone on the periphery is peace!

Exactly. One of the most frequent complaints I hear is that they made the federal government "too weak." As if that were a bad thing.

It is possible for too weak and too strong to both be bad things.

When it comes to the state, there is no such thing as "too weak."
I'd like to add "Somalia" to your vocabulary.

It is possible for too weak and too strong to both be bad things.

When it comes to the state, there is no such thing as "too weak."

When it comes to the state, there is no such thing as "too weak."

"Might makes right" is a better situation, then? After all, the weakest possible state would be no state.

As opposed to how the world is now?

I was not talking about the world Euadnam.

When it comes to the state, there is no such thing as "too weak."

Um Somalia comes to mind.

"Might makes right" is a better situation, then? After all, the weakest possible state would be no state.

and the fact that the state is the embodiment of 'might makes right' factors in how?

and the fact that the state is the embodiment of 'might makes right' factors in how?

Give this man a cookie.

and the fact that the state is the embodiment of 'might makes right' factors in how?

A democratic state isn't, really - especially one with a set of rules protecting individual rights. It can be misused that way, but it doesn't have to be.

In the absence of a state, on the other hand, all you have is "might makes right".

A democratic state isn't, really - especially one with a set of rules protecting individual rights. It can be misused that way, but it doesn't have to be.

except that the state is inherently a tool of elite rule by force. any democratic concessions that have been gained against such are just that, concessions, and they cannot change the fundamental nature of the beast.

in any case, any state that didn't have the might would shortly cease to exist.

In the absence of a state, on the other hand, all you have is "might makes right".

this isn't the thread for it, but come on, you know that there are non-state methods of societal organization.

except that the state is inherently a tool of elite rule by force. any democratic concessions that have been gained against such are just that, concessions, and they cannot change the fundamental nature of the beast.

So you don't think democratic government is possible?

in any case, any state that didn't have the might would shortly cease to exist.

This is true. The point is that it can't simply be might that controls the state.

this isn't the thread for it, but come on, you know that there are non-state methods of societal organization.

Not binding ones. If you form a governmental system, you have formed a state.

Mitt Romney to End Presidential Campaign?

Seems like it! Sources claim it... McCain might be the winner tonight!

MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23050678/) is carrying the story from the Associated Press. He's just "suspending" the campaign,though, not actually quitting, you know.

Mitt Romney to End Presidential Campaign?

Seems like it! Sources claim it... McCain might be the winner tonight!

So you don't think democratic government is possible?

i think the state cannot fundamentally embody the principles of democracy. governance may or may not be different, depending on how we are defining terms.

Not binding ones. If you form a governmental system, you have formed a state.

this is objectively false. the state refers to a specific thing that is a subset of the larger group 'ways of organizing and administrating societies'

MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23050678/) is carrying the story from the Associated Press. He's just "suspending" the campaign,though, not actually quitting, you know.


Not much of a diffrence right now

WORST: McCain dies in office; Vice-President Mike Huckabee becomes President.
Is anyone else getting that ominous feeling that we may well witness the assassination of a new president by "Terrorists"?

And with apologies to Keith Olbermann, here are tonight's WORST ELECTION SCENARIOS IN THE WORLD:

WORSE: Hillary Clinton finds a way to overcome her widespread negative image to become President.

WORSER: Clinton doesn't find a way to overcome image problems, John McCain becomes President.

WORST: McCain dies in office; Vice-President Mike Huckabee becomes President.

Is anyone else getting that ominous feeling that we may well witness the assassination of a new president by "Terrorists"?

Unfortunately I think the next president will probably be assassinated.

Unfortunately I think the next president will probably be assassinated.

Only if he's a good one...

And with apologies to Keith Olbermann, here are tonight's WORST ELECTION SCENARIOS IN THE WORLD:

WORSE: Hillary Clinton finds a way to overcome her widespread negative image to become President.

WORSER: Clinton doesn't find a way to overcome image problems, John McCain becomes President.

WORST: McCain dies in office; Vice-President Mike Huckabee becomes President.

That seems pretty apt.

Though I do have to say that I'm still holding out hopes that Hillary would actually do a decent job and exceed my more dire expectations (and who knows if Obama would actually be any better).

Same for McCain, too.

For Huckabee, I got nothing.

Only if he's a good one...

I guess that means Bill was not a good President then :D

Not much of a diffrence right now

Actually, there is. By suspending his campaign, what Romney is saying is that he'll not continue to go around campaigning, advertising, and whatnot, but on that same token he WILL stay on the ballots in various states.

In other words like Edwards he's exploiting the system in order to be a power broker. Frankly I think this exploit ought to be closed. No "suspending" your campaign(unless we're talking about some sort of family emergency or something similar that would force you to stop.) It's either you cancel it or not apart from the exceptions noted.

Actually, there is. By suspending his campaign, what Romney is saying is that he'll not continue to go around campaigning, advertising, and whatnot, but on that same token he WILL stay on the ballots in various states.

In other words like Edwards he's exploiting the system in order to be a power broker. Frankly I think this exploit ought to be closed. No "suspending" your campaign(unless we're talking about some sort of family emergency or something similar that would force you to stop.) It's either you cancel it or not apart from the exceptions noted.

He'd still be on the ballots even if he dropped out of the race entirely. Every candidate who has dropped out of the races is still on the ballot in states where they were ever on it, because those were planned for well ahead of time.

The question is whether or not anyone will continue to vote for Romney after this. My guess is that there won't be many, just as there aren't many people voting for anyone else who has dropped out of the running.

He'd still be on the ballots even if he dropped out of the race entirely. Every candidate who has dropped out of the races is still on the ballot in states where they were ever on it, because those were planned for well ahead of time.

The question is whether or not anyone will continue to vote for Romney after this. My guess is that there won't be many, just as there aren't many people voting for anyone else who has dropped out of the running.

That's a good point.