NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/

I'm still just curious on whether or not the Democrats actually want to win in 2008, because you guys seem dead set on losing 2008 when Hillary has 1,100 Delegates and Obama only has 1,039. I'm alittle confused by how she could be winning though, I mean you'd think with the way the media talks, Obama would be the one with more Delegates votes, not Hillary.

Maybe because she's the more popular Democratic candidate?
And maybe because the Hillary-hate-bandwagon is a vocal group, yet nonetheless a minority?

Both warmongers (Hillary and McCain) must be stopped.

Lunatic Goofballs for President!

Obama wins the elected delegate count so far.

However, $hillary paid more bribes to unelected "superdelegates," and there are enough of them for the Democratic Party E$tabli$hment to say a big "fuck you" to the voters of the Democratic Party.

Pledged Delegate Count for Democrats (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D)

What, are you new here or something? As explained Obama is winning pledged delegates (especially after today) but Clinton leads in superdelegates that gives her a lead. The Associated Press (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CAMPAIGN_RDP?SITE=WABEL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT) has the numbers as being a lot closer-
In overall totals in The Associated Press count, Clinton had 1,095 delegates to 1,070 for Obama, counting so-called superdelegates. They are party leaders not chosen at primaries or caucuses, free to change their minds. A total of 2,025 delegates is required to win the nomination at the national convention in Denver.

Obama wins the elected delegate count so far.

However, $hillary paid more bribes to unelected "superdelegates," and there are enough of them for the Democratic Party E$tabli$hment to say a big "fuck you" to the voters of the Democratic Party.

Pledged Delegate Count for Democrats (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D)

Indeed. If Bilary wins via the superdelegates, circumventing the will of the people, Denver will be VERY ugly. 1968 here we come!

Indeed. If Bilary wins via the superdelegates, circumventing the will of the people, Denver will be VERY ugly. 1968 here we come!

How exactly is it "circumventing the will of the people"? They're a political party and can use whatever criteria and system they wish to choose their nominees. Nobody is telling you you have to vote for her, nobody is telling you that you must vote for one of the two parties.

"the will of the people" has nothing to do with who gets the democratic nomination. The will of the administration of the democratic party does. You don't have some right to choose party nominations. You don't like who a party nominates, vote for someone else.

And while you're doing that, grow the fuck up and stop using nonsensical nicknames. The fact that you can't even debate political issues like an adult without resorting ot childish namecalling like a flustered cheerleader just shows you can't be bothered to think of an actual argument.

"the will of the people" has nothing to do with who gets the democratic nomination. The will of the administration of the democratic party does.Then why hold primary elections at all?
Why waste all that money and time holding primary "elections" ??
The fuck I am staying home playing MarioGalaxy if -at the end- my vote dont count.

Why this big mascarade?

Then why hold primary elections at all?

Because that is the system the parties felt like having

Why this big mascarade?

if you are somehow confused with the system or believe it to be something it is not, the fault lies with nobody but yourself.

Neo Art is sadly quite right. The political parties are when it comes down to it private organisations and can select thier nominee however they like. The primaries and so on are really more like opinion polls. If either party leadership really wanted to, they could just throw out the results completely and nominate a duck for thier presidential candidate.

Personally, I would prefer the Democratic nominee selection to be completely democratic (irony), without any Super-delegates. Even if Hillary is selected due to the influence of the Super-delegates (I hope not), or Obama (Yay please), people should respect the decision. I can only hope that whichever candidate is chosen as nominee, they will push for a completely democratic nominee selection method, without unaccountable Super-delegates for the next primary cycle.

Neo Art is sadly quite right.... they could just throw out the results completely and nominate a duck for thier presidential candidate.
if you are somehow confused...I am not confused, I am upset.

If my vote is not going to count, dont fucking ask me to come and vote.. I have better things to do than waste my time with stupid fake elections.

I have better things to do than waste my time with stupid fake elections.

But apparently no better thing to do than come on an internet forum and talk about how you have better things to do...

Look, it's simple. Either you understand how the system works, or you don't. If you do understand, then either participate, or don't. If you don't want to, don't do it. If you disagree with how the primary system works, don't take part. Nobody makes you, nobody forces you, nobody tricks you. If you don't want to, don't do it. If you don't like how the primaries are run, don't participate. If you don't like who the party nominates, vote for someone else.

And if you expected the system to be anything different than exactly what it is, that's your fault.

How exactly is it "circumventing the will of the people"? They're a political party and can use whatever criteria and system they wish to choose their nominees.

The will of the rank and file members of the party = "the will of the people".

"the will of the people" has nothing to do with who gets the democratic nomination. The will of the administration of the democratic party does. You don't have some right to choose party nominations.

Do you honestly think that if a bunch of the party's aristocrats go against the expressed will of the membership that the national convention will be all lovey dovey?

You don't like who a party nominates, vote for someone else.

To make it very simple, this is exactly what will happen in November. We will see "McCain Democrats" or "Obama Republicans".

And while you're doing that, grow the fuck up and stop using nonsensical nicknames. The fact that you can't even debate political issues like an adult without resorting ot childish namecalling like a flustered cheerleader just shows you can't be bothered to think of an actual argument.

LOL
The nickname is only nonsensical if Bill and Hillary weren't co-running as they did in '92.

"masquerade"

And the party leaders can run the party any way they want. Vote third party.

Green
Libertarian
Constitution
Communist
Prohibition
etc.

I lean Libertarian/Constitution/Republican, but the candidate is who gets my vote, never the party. I will not vote for a dirtbag just because I tend to agree with the majority of the stated ideals of the party. Most of the Dems and Pubbies are dirtbags, and they need to EARN my vote. I have voted for Democrat candidates in local elections because they were the right people for the job. Hillary is not (in my opinion) the right person for President. I like Obama, but I don't think he's right, either. I strongly dislike McCain, and I've got a bad feeling about Huckabee, too.

But apparently no better thing to do than come on an internet forum and talk about how you have better things to do...

Look, it's simple. Either you understand how the system works, or you don't. If you do understand, then either participate, or don't. If you don't want to, don't do it. If you disagree with how the primary system works, don't take part. Nobody makes you, nobody forces you, nobody tricks you. If you don't want to, don't do it. If you don't like how the primaries are run, don't participate. If you don't like who the party nominates, vote for someone else.

And if you expected the system to be anything different than exactly what it is, that's your fault.

I think you're being a touch unfair and resorting to a bit of the old 'love it or leave' nonsense.

While the 'Billary' thing is completely fucking annoying, the comparison to the 1968 convention is fairly apt, when the Democratic leaders picked Herbert Humphrey over the popular vote winning McCarthy. You can know how the system works and not like it. You can even participate in the process in the good faith hopes that your vote matters and be rightfully upset when they decide that it doesn't. Because you knew it was possible before hand doesn't mean that you should be any less disenfranchised. It certainly, by no means, disallow your ability to criticize it. Just because they are not legally obligated to change the way they do something doesn't mean you can't say it's fucking stupid, even if you participate.

I can't believe you of all people would be advocating a 'love it or leave it' stance.

Neo Art is sadly quite right. The political parties are when it comes down to it private organisations and can select thier nominee however they like. The primaries and so on are really more like opinion polls. If either party leadership really wanted to, they could just throw out the results completely and nominate a duck for thier presidential candidate.

Personally, I would prefer the Democratic nominee selection to be completely democratic (irony), without any Super-delegates. Even if Hillary is selected due to the influence of the Super-delegates (I hope not), or Obama (Yay please), people should respect the decision. I can only hope that whichever candidate is chosen as nominee, they will push for a completely democratic nominee selection method, without unaccountable Super-delegates for the next primary cycle.

Indeed. A system in which 0.000007% of the voting population has 19.6% voting power is unworthy of the perty name...

And if you expected the system to be anything different than exactly what it is, that's your fault.If they expend million$$$ in this election process, If they ask people to participate, If they ask me to come and vote, I fully expect them to respect the will of the people, I expect them to let the votes decide.
.
If you don't like who the party nominates, vote for someone else.You got that right, if Obama wins most of the popular vote (most delegates), and the DNC decides to NOT respect the popular vote, Then the DNC does not deserve my vote/support, They deserve all the shit that can hit the fan.. and then some.

I think you're being a touch unfair and resorting to a bit of the old 'love it or leave' nonsense.

While the 'Billary' thing is completely fucking annoying, the comparison to the 1968 convention is fairly apt, when the Democratic leaders picked Herbert Humphrey over the popular vote winning McCarthy. You can know how the system works and not like it. You can even participate in the process in the good faith hopes that your vote matters and be rightfully upset when they decide that it doesn't. Because you knew it was possible before hand doesn't mean that you should be any less disenfranchised. It certainly, by no means, disallow your ability to criticize it. Just because they are not legally obligated to change the way they do something doesn't mean you can't say it's fucking stupid, even if you participate.

I can't believe you of all people would be advocating a 'love it or leave it' stance.


Of course you can criticize. You can criticize all you want. Never claimed one couldn't. You have every right to protest any system you feel like protesting. There is nothing wrong with saying you don't like the system as it is. There is nothing wrong with saying you prefer if the system were different.

There is, however, something very wrong with the extraordinary intellectual dishonesty by trying to pretend that it's something it isn't. The primary is "going against the will of the people"? It was never intended to mirror, exactly, the will of the people. The primaries are a litmus test, nothing more or less. Now you may not like that, you may disagree iwth that, you may want to change that, and all of that is fine.

But you shouldn't try to pretend that it's something it's not.

Don't forget not to count Florida and Michigan.

Hilary won those states, but the Democratic Party is not allowing them to count because they moved up their primaries and made the party mad.

There's a recent nytimes articles about the various ways of counting delegates. Well, make sure the way that you're seeing delegates counted takes into account no MI and FL numbers counting.

It might change the winner.

Reasons there is more than one primary vote count.

superdelegates (can vote for anyone they want)
winner-take all states
partial results
non-winner-take-all states
states punished for moving up their primaries have delegates that don't count, vote results don't count (MI and FL both went to Clinton and are in this category)

and the obvious accuracy and bias in reporting

article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/us/politics/09delegates.html?ref=politics

You got that right, if Obama wins most of vote, and the DNC decides to NOT respect the popular vote, Then the DNC does not deserve my vote/support, They deserve all the shit I can trow at them.

What if by some miracle, Hillary won the popular vote, and Obama won through Super-delegates? Would you still vote?

If they expend million in this election process, If they ask people to participate, If they ask me to come and vote, I fully expect them to respect the will of the people, I expect them to let the votes decide.

If you expect a system to be run in a way that the system does not run in, that's your problem. You might not like the way the primary system is structured, you may not agree with the way the primary system is structured, you may try to change the way the primary system is structured, and all of that is quite fine.

But to somehow expect it to be run in a way that it just does not is your own failing, and nobody elses.

What if by some miracle, Hillary won the popular vote, and Obama won through Super-delegates? Would you still vote?If Hillary wins the Popular vote, then the DNC has to give it to her.
Just scrap the damn SuperDelegates.

Its a matter of democracy!!! I wonder if the Democratic Party "elders" know what that means anymore.

Of course you can criticize. You can criticize all you want. Never claimed one couldn't. You have every right to protest any system you feel like protesting. There is nothing wrong with saying you don't like the system as it is. There is nothing wrong with saying you prefer if the system were different.

There is, however, something very wrong with the extraordinary intellectual dishonesty by trying to pretend that it's something it isn't. The primary is "going against the will of the people"? It was never intended to mirror, exactly, the will of the people. The primaries are a litmus test, nothing more or less. Now you may not like that, you may disagree iwth that, you may want to change that, and all of that is fine.

But you shouldn't try to pretend that it's something it's not.
That's a little bit of semantic nonsense, now isn't it? The primary system was in fact set up to by progressive reformers to measure the the popular opinion, or in fact will, of the party members towards the candidates exactly because of distrust of the 'smoke filled room' decision making by political bosses because there was disenfranchisement related to that. When in 1968 the party went against the popular opinion or 'will' the party paid the price. That's really all the person you started against said and it's proven historically true by his own citation. The primary system took the opinion of its constituency, that is their will. Historically they have ignored that at their peril. Nothing said was inaccurate. You've merrily played a game of semantics.

..is your own failing, and nobody elses.why would it be my fault?
I din not invent the fucking superDelegates, the stupid DNC "elders" did, its their fault.

The SuperDelegates have to go.

What if by some miracle, Hillary won the popular vote, and Obama won through Super-delegates? Would you still vote?

I would be shocked and appalled that she won the popular vote. I would be shocked, amazed and happy if he won the SDs. And if both happened and he won the nomination, I would be in Absolute shock. However at this point, I'd say there was no signifiucant chance of that happening.

To be honest, at this point we are headed straight to 4 more years of GOP. At least McCain's a bearable guy. If anyone other than him, Obama, or someone acceprtable but not currently in the race take it, I will seriously consider delaying my recent decided return to the US.

That's a little bit of semantic nonsense, now isn't it? The primary system was in fact set up to by progressive reformers to measure the the popular opinion, or in fact will, of the party members towards the candidates exactly because of distrust of the 'smoke filled room' decision making by political bosses because there was disenfranchisement related to that. When in 1968 the party went against the popular opinion or 'will' the party paid the price. That's really all the person you started against said and it's proven historically true by his own citation. The primary system took the opinion of its constituency, that is their will. Historically they have ignored that at their peril. Nothing said was inaccurate. You've merrily played a game of semantics.

Thank you for that. :)

Having looked at the party selection system in America, then coupled that with what I learned about the electoral college in 2004, I can honestly say NOTHING political in America would surprise me (Except, perhaps, a switch to proper democracy.) I thought the British system was bad but sheesh!

Anyway: Isn't all this a little premature? Wait until the end, THEN, if necessary, get the pitchforks and flaming torches out!

Also:
they could just throw out the results completely and nominate a duck for thier presidential candidate.
Edd the Duck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edd_the_Duck) '08!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/61/Edd_the_duck.jpg

why would it be my fault?
I din not invent the fucking superDelegates, the stupid DNC "elders" did, its their fault.

The SuperDelegates have to go.
The super-delegates have been there for over 20 years and are there to balance out and prevent a dark horse candidate. They are the party leaders.

And, normally, you wouldn't care about them as their votes are usually symbolic and meaningless. Rather, ironically, like the electoral college then. People don't care unless is gets used against the candidate they THEY want to win.

Indeed. A system in which 0.000007% of the voting population has 19.6% voting power is unworthy of the perty name...
How about one where less than half of the US population makes a decision on which person will be allowed to run as a major candidate without input from everyone else?

How about one where less than half of the US population makes a decision on which person will be allowed to run as a major candidate without input from everyone else?The entire population? Or just the voting population?

Just because we are permitted to vote for the person who the Democratic Dictators choose for us doesn't mean we are a democracy. This "superdelegate" bulls**t reminds me of the staged elections in the Soviet Union where the Party decided who the people could "vote" for.

Maybe because she's the more popular Democratic candidate?
And maybe because the Hillary-hate-bandwagon is a vocal group, yet nonetheless a minority?

Actually...no!

CNN is including superdelegates that may or may not go to Cliton. In terms of delegates determined by the primaries/caucuses, Obama is ahead.

Just because we are permitted to vote for the person who the Democratic Dictators choose for us doesn't mean we are a democracy. This "superdelegate" bulls**t reminds me of the staged elections in the Soviet Union where the Party decided who the people could "vote" for.It's funny, because choosing "whom you can vote for" has always been up to the parties, not including write-ins.

In the end, one can only hope that the superdelegates are around to prevent the likes of Huey Long from becoming a candidate.

With a little bit of searching, you can find the answer on the CIA's website, www.cia.gov.











For the slow lane kids, what that means is that you can look at the world fact book entry for the United States, and see that above the voting age, females outnumber males.

I'm not sure, but I think that she's winning because she's getting more delegates. I could be wrong.

I'm not sure, but I think that she's winning because she's getting more delegates. I could be wrong.

Except when you look at the numbers and realized that polls are including super delegates that may or may not vote for that particular candidate. When looked at the numbers from the Primaries, Obama is defeating Clinton.

Well at least the Democrats are doing things closer to some resemblance of democracy by allocating states won proportinately, unlike say the Republicans or as they should be renamed the American War Crusader party.

While the 'Billary' thing is completely fucking annoying, the comparison to the 1968 convention is fairly apt, when the Democratic leaders picked Herbert Humphrey over the popular vote winning McCarthy.

Humphrey and McCarthy were actually different in more than style, unlike Obama and Clinton.

Well at least the Democrats are doing things closer to some resemblance of democracy by allocating states won proportinately, unlike say the Republicans or as they should be renamed the American War Crusader party.

Um yea...you realize that both have pretty much the exact same format?

If either party leadership really wanted to, they could just throw out the results completely and nominate a duck for thier presidential candidate.

This is assuming said duck is 35 years of age and a naturalized citizen... No foreign born ducklings in this election...

The primary system was in fact set up to by progressive reformers to measure the the popular opinion, or in fact will, of the party members.

Maybe it was, but I don't see much of a manifestation of the "popular will" in the primary system... the voters hardly seem to be deciding the party direction on actual issues.

Actually it's not a matter of democracy. You're not electing the presidential candidate. It's basically a huge opinion poll.

And one done in a nonsensical way.

All that should be done is make these "super delegates" accountable in some way. So if they vote against what the state voted for then they will most likely get the boot.

Um yea...you realize that both have pretty much the exact same format?

the republicans have far fewer super delegates but they also have several winner take all states. that is what has given mccain such a commanding lead. he won new york and florida which were winner-take-all. that is what put him out of reach of romney and/or huckabee.

If Hillary wins the Popular vote, then the DNC has to give it to her.
Just scrap the damn SuperDelegates.

Its a matter of democracy!!! I wonder if the Democratic Party "elders" know what that means anymore.

Actually it's not a matter of democracy. You're not electing the presidential candidate. It's basically a huge opinion poll.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/

I'm still just curious on whether or not the Democrats actually want to win in 2008, because you guys seem dead set on losing 2008 when Hillary has 1,100 Delegates and Obama only has 1,039. I'm alittle confused by how she could be winning though, I mean you'd think with the way the media talks, Obama would be the one with more Delegates votes, not Hillary.

One word.

Superdelegates.

Ok, a couple more:
The Clintons have been planning their return to the White House a long, long time and have given money and favors all over the place.

They must hate Obama with a passion that burns so brightly it can be seen from space, because he's in their way.

Interesting how he's winning more states and more of the popular vote, but will in all likelihood lose because he's not part of the "old boys" network that Billary is... and because he stands to upset the status quo, which is what the CONSTITUENTS want. This, however, pisses off the dinosaurs who are in power and want things to stay exactly as they are.

and because he stands to upset the status quo

How?

Has everyone forgotten who the keynote speaker at the DNC back in '04 was?

Fuck this. I'm moving to Canada.

One word.

Superdelegates.

Ok, a couple more:
The Clintons have been planning their return to the White House a long, long time and have given money and favors all over the place.

They must hate Obama with a passion that burns so brightly it can be seen from space, because he's in their way.

Interesting how he's winning more states and more of the popular vote, but will in all likelihood lose because he's not part of the "old boys" network that Billary is... and because he stands to upset the status quo, which is what the CONSTITUENTS want. This, however, pisses off the dinosaurs who are in power and want things to stay exactly as they are.

Oh and btw: since Hillary keeps pounding into us the EXPERIENCE she will bring to the White House as a qualification, and since her husband and NOT SHE was the President, and since she was NOT an elected cabinet member, I think "Billary" is actually an accurate representation.

And this, dear friends, from a registered Dem.

Well it makes some sense. They want a candidate that's electable and won't stray far from the party line.

I'm not talking about the superdelegates; rather, the insanity of taking an "opinion poll" staggered over several weeks, with the early results public and influencing future results.

And one done in a nonsensical way.

Well it makes some sense. They want a candidate that's electable and won't stray far from the party line.

How?

Has everyone forgotten who the keynote speaker at the DNC back in '04 was?

forgotten?? why would anyone know to begin with?

Well it makes some sense. They want a candidate that's electable and won't stray far from the party line.

Which means that Hillary should not be their choice because she's not electable.

How?

Has everyone forgotten who the keynote speaker at the DNC back in '04 was?

Obama, however, is the one who is talking about what's wrong with the system and how he's going to clean house and change Washington politics, or haven't you been paying attention to his campaign? And let's face it, the system is what it is because both parties want it to be that way.

Which means that Hillary should not be their choice because she's not electable.

I can't claim to know why the superdelegates are picking her over Obama, I just think that's the reason behind having superdelegates in the first place.

C'mon. Doesn't anyone see what's happening? The republicans are placing the worst possible candidate, McCain, up as the candidate so that when he goes head to head with Hillary the Media will bomb McCain with war mongering accusations, (He is a war freak.) and turn us all towards the so called peace loving Hillary. Wake up everyone and google Ron Paul.

Ok, explain please why the Republican party would knowingly put up a candidate that gives the White House to the Democrats?

"If it doesn't make sense, it didn't happen!"

forgotten?? why would anyone know to begin with?

I like that answer. :)

C'mon. Doesn't anyone see what's happening? The republicans are placing the worst possible candidate, McCain, up as the candidate so that when he goes head to head with Hillary the Media will bomb McCain with war mongering accusations, (He is a war freak.) and turn us all towards the so called peace loving Hillary. Wake up everyone and google Ron Paul.

Ron Paul.

Oh brother...Yea like having a racist president who does not believe in individual freedom would be good for the country :rolleyes:

So that's it? You're going to blow off a candidate because of some screwed up fox report? Did you even watch it? Ron defended himself quite well. Are you even watching the debates? The few times he gets to speak he owns the spot light. And watch Romney and McCain at these things. While Ron tries to stick to the real issues at hand Romney and McCain just fling crap at each other about technicalities like spastic chimps.

Oh yes, vote Paul for '08! He's the only candidate who has a genuine plan to cause the political, economic and social destruction of the United States within 18 Months of his election - if not before that!

So that's it? You're going to blow off a candidate because of some screwed up fox report? Did you even watch it? Ron defended himself quite well. Are you even watching the debates? The few times he gets to speak he owns the spot light. And watch Romney and McCain at these things. While Ron tries to stick to the real issues at hand Romney and McCain just fling crap at each other about technicalities like spastic chimps.

will in all likelihood lose

I disagree, Kat. Looking at the states that have yet to hold their primaries/caucuses, most of the states seem to be ones which would support Obama--midwest, west, and southern. Billary seems to be winning in the more "important" states: CA, NY, FL. I think we're going to see a whole lot of results like yesterday: Obama sweeps. It doesn't matter how many superdelegates Billary has if Obama has enough of a majority of election-based delegates. Not to mention, superdelegates do tend to simply vote for the front-runner, and their votes can change at any time.

So that's it? You're going to blow off a candidate because of some screwed up fox report? Did you even watch it? Ron defended himself quite well. Are you even watching the debates? The few times he gets to speak he owns the spot light. And watch Romney and McCain at these things. While Ron tries to stick to the real issues at hand Romney and McCain just fling crap at each other about technicalities like spastic chimps.

And... are YOU watching the news? Romney's out of the race...

So that's it? You're going to blow off a candidate because of some screwed up fox report?

Who needs Fox when we have his own statements and his record?

Did you even watch it?

Nope. I rarely watch cable news anymore.

Ron defended himself quite well. Are you even watching the debates?

Why should I when they basicly say the samething and bash eachother over the head? If I want that, I'll watch the US Congress on C-SPAN and C-SPAN 2

The few times he gets to speak he owns the spot light. And watch Romney and McCain at these things. While Ron tries to stick to the real issues at hand Romney and McCain just fling crap at each other about technicalities like spastic chimps.

You really need to look into Ron Paul's record. He's more insane than all the candidates combined.

Oh brother...Yea like having a racist president who does not believe in individual freedom would be good for the country :rolleyes:

Wait, what? Are we even talking the same candidate? I mean, dear God, do you even research what you're talking about? He's more for individaul freedom than any other candidate. Hillary borders on socialism. If you're just going to sit there and listen to O'Riely and Blitzer tell you how it is theen don't talk to me 'till you get educated.

You really need to look into Ron Paul's record. He's more insane than all the candidates combined.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, freedom, less taxes, non intervention, withdrawl from the UN, no national ID card, no North American Union, that's insanity, the constitution, that's pretty nuts too.

Wait, what? Are we even talking the same candidate? I mean, dear God, do you even research what you're talking about? He's more for individaul freedom than any other candidate. Hillary borders on socialism. If you're just going to sit there and listen to O'Riely and Blitzer tell you how it is theen don't talk to me 'till you get educated.

Heh, Ron Paul for individual freedom, and Hillary for socialism. What utter rubbish, If Paul were elected he'd destroy the political, economic and social foundations of the US within 18 months. Clinton is about as far away from socialism as one can get in American politics.

Perhaps it is you who should research the facts?

Obama, however, is the one who is talking about what's wrong with the system and how he's going to clean house and change Washington politics,

And we should believe him for a second because...?

Talking that way is a really convenient way to approach reform. Everyone can support it, because it doesn't really mean anything, except perhaps more stringent ethics restrictions that will require corrupt people to be a little more innovative. It's little different from the conservatives who talk about "cutting bureaucracy and government waste", except that he probably won't use it as an excuse to cut off food and health care to poor children.

Except when you look at the numbers and realized that polls are including super delegates that may or may not vote for that particular candidate. When looked at the numbers from the Primaries, Obama is defeating Clinton.

Yeah, superdelegates (or uncommitted delegates, as the GOP calls 'em, IIRC), are a bit of a sop to the "smoke-filled room" days before open primaries and caucuses (caucae?). They're supposed to keep the rank-and-file from selecting a flavor-of-the-moment candidate who, in reality, sucks (like Ron Paul). That's because they're high-level party folks whose experience is supposed to keep things relatively sane.

Superdelegates who answer to nobody doesn't, as a concept, seem terribly democratic, but then this isn't, strictly speaking, a democracy. Could I work just a few more appositives into that sentence, grammatically speaking?

And... are YOU watching the news? Romney's out of the race...

Yeah, but he's just suspended. He can jump back in. As i said, everyone is getting out of the way for McCain, our war mongering hero that we can all rally behind, right?

He's more for individaul freedom than any other candidate.

Except for women, gays, and blacks.

Hillary borders on socialism.

Fuck, I wish.

Now, that's real reform. ;)

If you're just going to sit there and listen to O'Riely and Blitzer tell you how it is theen don't talk to me 'till you get educated.

This wasn't directed at me, but for what it's worth I never listen to either.

Wait, what? Are we even talking the same candidate? I mean, dear God, do you even research what you're talking about? He's more for individaul freedom than any other candidate.

Is that why he is advocating going back to the Articles of Confederation which would leave open racism with no recourse for those being affected? You really need to actually do research before blindly following a candidate who hates the freedoms the Constitution gaurentees.

Hillary borders on socialism.

I don't like Hillary at all and shall not vote for her if she is the democratic nominee.

If you're just going to sit there and listen to O'Riely and Blitzer tell you how it is theen don't talk to me 'till you get educated.

I guess you missed the part where I said that I rarely watch cable news anymore. I do not watch O'Reilly or Wolf Blitzer at all.

As to being educated, I have a bachelors degree in Political Science and I do research each candidate and Ron Paul is an idiot who support Partial Birth Abortion Ban even though he said and I quote "it violated the constitution and his oath of office." Tell me. WHy should I vote for this fucktard if he voted for something that violated his oath of office as well as the constitution according to his own statement?

Clinton is about as far away from socialism as one can get in American politics.

Clinton is .....http://www.nearlygood.com/smilies/rofl462.gif That's rich.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v287/Celtlund/Clintonism.jpg

O.K., give me these sources, they sound hilarious. Do they also proclaim how George Bush is a messiah and how the Iraq war is right on course? Do they also tell us that oil prices are sky rocketing 'cause of shortages and that terrorists attacked us 'cause we're free and those damned terrorists are just sitting in a cave twisting their little Snivley Whiplash mustaches and planning evil deeds just for the sake of being bastards and ruining our fantastic time over here in America?

Here at McPauls, we serve our anarchy with a side of bubbly Kool-Aid!

But honestly, this whole election is very interesting because it's the first time in a long time where people actually have to pay attention to the primaries. This country's politics are founded on things that don't make a whole lot of sense. However much I disagree with the idea of superdelegates, where they conceptually come from is not a far cry from how the Electoral College works (i.e. screw the popular vote, we're picking anyway). The best part of both the College and superdelegates is that they can go "haha, you won our vote, but I'm switching, :P"

It just goes to show that the founders of our country never meant for the final decision to rest with us.

Oh, and honestly, while everyone's talking about everyone else being immature, language please.

Clinton is .....http://www.nearlygood.com/smilies/rofl462.gif That's rich.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v287/Celtlund/Clintonism.jpg

Please. Clinton starts calling for universal healthcare and a withdrawal from Iraq and suddenly she's 'OMG socialist!!!'

There's no such thing as socialism in mainstream US politics. Examine European politics and there'll you'll see socialist politics. Clinton is not socialist by any meaning of the word.

How exactly is it "circumventing the will of the people"? They're a political party and can use whatever criteria and system they wish to choose their nominees. Nobody is telling you you have to vote for her, nobody is telling you that you must vote for one of the two parties.

"the will of the people" has nothing to do with who gets the democratic nomination. The will of the administration of the democratic party does. You don't have some right to choose party nominations. You don't like who a party nominates, vote for someone else.

I say pretty fcking funny theyre called the democratic party then ay? I know, I know, the US hasnt been a democracy for the last 200 years

And while you're doing that, grow the fuck up and stop using nonsensical nicknames. The fact that you can't even debate political issues like an adult without resorting ot childish namecalling like a flustered cheerleader just shows you can't be bothered to think of an actual argument.

The fact that youre bothered so much by that that you're making a "while you're doing that" statement, makes you the crybaby. You sound like a prick.

I say let Hillary win, soldiers need work too.

Wtf, why are my posts not going through. If this is the moderators doing then this argument is impossible for me to win.

It's the forums, but nice paranoia. All Paulbots seem to have that

Heh, Ron Paul for individual freedom, and Hillary for socialism. What utter rubbish, If Paul were elected he'd destroy the political, economic and social foundations of the US within 18 months. Clinton is about as far away from socialism as one can get in American politics.

Perhaps it is you who should research the facts?

Dude, skinny, you're a real card, you know that? Hillary want's to impose an act that would close the gap in wages between men and women in the same occupation. Tell me that that isn't socialism and I'll poke you in your eye.

Wtf, why are my posts not going through. If this is the moderators doing then this argument is impossible for me to win.

I noticed you only have 5 posts. Once you reach the magic number they will no longer be filtered. I'm not sure what the number is although I think you are close.

Wtf, why are my posts not going through. If this is the moderators doing then this argument is impossible for me to win.

Wtf, why are my posts not going through. If this is the moderators doing then this argument is impossible for me to win.

It's not something the moderators are doing, it's automatic for new posters. Your best bet is to go to the spam (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=29) forum and get your post count up a bit.

Thanks Ifreann, I'll try that.

It's the forums, but nice paranoia. All Paulbots seem to have that

Pfff, paranoia is an immutable fact of life these days. Sad. Conspiracy is tossed these days on the grounds of it being unpatriotic, but history tells us otherwise.

If you expect a system to be run in a way that the system does not run in, that's your problem.

...

But to somehow expect it to be run in a way that it just does not is your own failing, and nobody elses.

Stop lying and call yourself neo nazi.

Just to boost my post number I'd like to officialy apologize to any moderator that comment might have hurt.

Bah, count me out of this one, gonna go spam till I have enough posts.

Bah, count me out of this one, gonna go spam till I have enough posts.

You don't need to go to another forum just to get enough posts.
Makes no difference to your comments how many you've posted beforehand.

Bah, count me out of this one, gonna go spam till I have enough posts.

Oh come back! Please? This thread needs you

Stop lying and call yourself neo nazi.

What the fuck........

Dude, skinny, you're a real card, you know that? Hillary want's to impose an act that would close the gap in wages between men and women in the same occupation. Tell me that that isn't socialism and I'll poke you in your eye.

Two people getting the same pay for the same job -- OMG how HORRIBLE!!!!!
Tell me being against equal pay for the same job is not misogynistic and I'll say it's a lie.

Because old, stupid women can't see past the, "She's a woman like me! Yay!!"

I blame lesbians with butchy haircuts as well, in addition to plain old stupid people.

Seriously, her and Romney are both awful. They're both so horribly insincere that I don't have any comprehension as to why someone would vote for them.

Oh wait, because stupid is as stupid does.

Dude, skinny, you're a real card, you know that? Hillary want's to impose an act that would close the gap in wages between men and women in the same occupation. Tell me that that isn't socialism and I'll poke you in your eye.

Wow. I bet you wish you knew what the word "socialism" means right now.

At any rate, this debate has bored me, so I guess it is time for me to intervene.

I believe, for your case, a simple haiku will do. One about people like you, really.

Hates the Democrats.
Tries to call them socialist.
Wash, rinse and repeat.

Dude, skinny, you're a real card, you know that? Hillary want's to impose an act that would close the gap in wages between men and women in the same occupation. Tell me that that isn't socialism and I'll poke you in your eye.

You're actually trying to claim that insuring equal pay for equal work regardless of gender is socialism? (blocks eye poke with my hand and retaliates with a stooge slap)

Dude, skinny, you're a real card, you know that? Hillary want's to impose an act that would close the gap in wages between men and women in the same occupation. Tell me that that isn't socialism and I'll poke you in your eye.


Youre an idiot. And a misogynist.

Dude, skinny, you're a real card, you know that? Hillary want's to impose an act that would close the gap in wages between men and women in the same occupation. Tell me that that isn't socialism and I'll poke you in your eye.

You say that as if its a bad thing.

Stop lying and call yourself neo nazi.
:rolleyes:
That's rich, you ought to try reading some of what Neo A has posted in other threads. I don't particularly like him, or agree with him very often, but he is certainly no neo-nazi.

:rolleyes:
That's rich, you ought to try reading some of what Neo A has posted in other threads. I don't particularly like him, or agree with him very often, but he is certainly no neo-nazi.I think NeoArt is more likely to get offended by the Nazi tag, because of his religion (Jewish.. I think)

If Hillary wins, the Democratic insiders can sit around being smug abound handing over the election to the Republicans.

Both warmongers (Hillary and McCain) must be stopped.

Lunatic Goofballs for President!

I'm a warmonger too. But in my Administration, all wars will be fought with pies and covert prank squad infiltrations. *nod*

Seriously, Hillary and Romney are both awful. They're both so horribly insincere that I don't have any comprehension as to why someone would vote for them.So far so good.
BTW, I agree, Hillary dont look honest to me.

Because ****** can't see past the,

I blame **** with butchy haircuts as well, in addition to plain *** stupid people.


Oh wait, because stupid is as stupid does.Dude, there is a problem with that part of your post, *Houston we have a problem*

if I were you, I would edit that part, its a generalization X3 , ugly ones.

I'm a warmonger too. But in my Administration, all wars will be fought with pies and covert prank squad infiltrations. *nod*

That's why we love you, LG! :D

I think we should dissolve all political parties and vote for the candidates on their OWN merits.

I think we should dissolve all political parties and vote for the candidates on their OWN merits.

That would be nice.

I think we should dissolve all political parties and vote for the candidates on their OWN merits.

You can do that now.

McCain, up as the candidate so that when he goes head to head with Hillary the Media will bomb McCain with war mongering accusations, (He is a war freak.) and turn us all towards the so called peace loving Hillary. Wake up everyone and google Ron Paul.

I was going to correct you and properly describe McCain as a war HERO, but then i saw the Ron Paul line and realized you were already lost beyond hope.



****Things i wish were NSG rules.******
1. People with single digit post counts are banned from talking about the Bible and Ron Paul.

I think we should dissolve all political parties and vote for the candidates on their OWN merits.

short of outlawing 'working as a group to enact your shared agenda' and abolishing representative democracy, how do you propose to keep political parties dissolved? they form for a reason, you know.

also, its hard enough already to try to track down enough info on the 'merits' of individuals at all the various levels of government you have a say over - do you really wish to make voting essentially a game of chance in all but the highest profile elections?

also, its hard enough already to try to track down enough info on the 'merits' of individuals at all the various levels of government you have a say over - do you really wish to make voting essentially a game of chance in all but the highest profile elections?

Indeed... and we have every reason to suspect that the suggested proposal would make this information problem much worse.

A political party stands for something. Make somebody be part of a political party to have a chance, and you make him or her stand for something. Have a political system of independent candidates, and you encourage politically convenient non-stances and emphasis on irrelevant image and personality factors.

This is one of the reasons primaries are such a mess: the Party factions are not well-defined and organized enough to play that sort of role for the candidates.

I think we should dissolve all political parties and vote for the candidates on their OWN merits.

Yeah, we gave something like that a whirl in California and we ended up electing an action star...

Yeah, we gave something like that a whirl in California and we ended up electing an action star...

I would've voted for Gary Coleman. *nod*