Printable View
Meanwhile, back at the ranch...
Bill plays our Panzer Jaeger-identified "traitor" card (link), while speaking to vets:
"...all this other stuff...". Right. That other stuff like truth, honor, self-respect. That stuff, instead of the distracting/intruding stuff, like "I NEVER had sex with that woman...", etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by BC
Is he trying to sabotage her candidacy?
I think that the current setup of the Democratic nomination is poorly constructed, and waiting for a scenario like this to happen. Why do the superdelegates get a say in it at all if they're not supposed to change the popular outcome?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I thought that the Democratic nomination process was proportional, i.e. winning the popular vote = getting the most delegates?Quote:
Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory.
Afaik no. You can get the popular vote in a state but still have fewer delegates if you didn't win the popular vote in each district that assigns delegates. Similarly, some counties count more than others within a state.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenring
On the big map, you can win more delegates but lack behind in popular vote due to this reason and also if you win say the big states but lose all the small states.
It's proportional, in a district with 4 delegates they will be split 2-2 unless one of the candidates gets over 66% (not sure on the number), then it will be slit 3-1.
Then you could say it's proportional for that district, but not for the statewide level (let alone national). Proportional statewide would mean that the state itself is one district in wich all delegates are chosen based on % of the vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Senator Clinton on her experience in Bosnia:
I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia, and as Togo said, there was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn't go, so send the First Lady. That’s where we went. I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.
Now watch this news video from the time.
There's nothing left to say. Senator Clinton, it is with regret that I inform you that your pants are on fire.
That sounds dangerous to everybody involved *thinks of Clinton's comment about wearing asbestos pants*Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
There must be something in the DNA of the Clintons that compels them to lie.
Makes you worry about Chelsea.
CR
I call it, "pulling a Romney". :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
That's to say, it was a baffling stupid lie that was easily checked up on and was told needlessly.
Heh. Maybe the "...but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base." part actually happened on her return to D.C.
It'll be interesting to watch her wriggle/spin her way out of this one.
Any bets she'll say that that was the only way to have people investigate it, bring up evidence that it didn't happen but at the same time prove that she was in Bosnia on official mission?
Hillary Clinton's bout of sensationalism pales in comparison to the foreign policy lies of the incumbent President. Hillary's lies never cost so many lives. Maybe they will if she becomes President, though. The same applies to John McCain. His unnecessary and ridiculous stunt visit to Iraq proves it. On a press conference he said his visit proved that 'you can walk freely in certain areas of Baghdad'. Sure you can - if you have a bulletproof vest, a 100-strong security detail surrounding you, three Blackhawks surveilling the area and two Apache gunships overhead, to the tune of one and a half million dollar a day. Most Iraqis don't have that kind of money. Luckily, the American taxpayer does.Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
I don't have time to go over his entire campaign with you. Please do keep up. :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I just read a great article in this morning's paper about the Democrats bashing NAFTA and how they are lying through their teeth about the stats. The article said that not only is Canada the US' biggest trading partner, but that 7,000,000 jobs in the US are directly tied to Canadian purchases.
The article listed over a dozen US states, big ones (Pennsylvania, New York, etc.), that showed more of their exports going to Canada than to many if not all of their other export customers combined.
I was never a big fan of NAFTA, but we're pretty much tied at the hip now and it would create huge problems to undo it.
(Unless NAFTA forces us to export bulk water to the US, which some US lawmakers says it does, in which case we'll tear it up ourselves and use it for toilet paper.)
NAFTA has been a net benefit to all the countries involved. It's shameful union pandering on the part of the Democrats to claim otherwise. Allegedly, the Obama campaign already assure the Canadian government that his anti-NAFTA rhetoric is a pack of lies and although nothing has leaked about it yet, I doubt Clinton is serious about repealing it either. While that's good, I don't think it speaks well of either candidate's character. :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
politicians have character? :inquisitive:
you hear the weirdest things everyday :smash:
Heh, you should read some democrat blog posts about Obama - they almost worship the guy, they beleive he 'transcends' being just a politician. It's like they believe he's a savior of America.
See: this video.
CR
Up here in Canadaland, most people do see Obama as a saviour. Compared to how we see Bush, which ain't none too kindly (a mix between Joseph and Charlie McCarthy), Obama is seen as intelligent, well spoken, and far less likely to invade other countries for fun and profit or sell his soul to Exxon.
Whether Obama is good or bad, I'm not sure yet, what I can tell you is if Obama wins and pays a visit north, he'll get a reception here unseen since JFK or the Beatles came a' calling.
So if all fails in the US, he can always give Canada a try?
Nice. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Know what band that is? Sounds like Cake.
Is it just me, or do other Americans wake up in the morning, pop on CNN, listen to campaign news about the three stooges, and think to themselves "Awww, crap". Maybe Ron Paul isn't all that bad after all. Sure, the man is a kook, and his economic policies, beyond being foolish would be downright dangerous if enacted. But presidents don't have the power to enact 20% of the laundry list he's tossed on the table. And one thing about him.... While you may not believe in his ideas, you could be confident that HE at least does.
I have no idea who I'm voting for. But of the three, shockingly, Hillary is probably the safest bet for the future security of the country.
I believe it is.Quote:
Know what band that is? Sounds like Cake.
@ Don C - why? :inquisitive:
CR
Why Ron Paul, or why Hillary?
I'm not endorsing her. I think she'd be disastrous for the moral fiber of the country. I just think unlike Obama, who would be viewed as weak internationally and will encourage groups like Al-Queda, or McCain, who seems to have a chip on his shoulder with everyone, she'd be smart enough to not rock the boat that much. Her domestic agenda... maybe not so good.
But surely you've noticed by now that we have 3 Democrats running for President.
A bad omen for the Clinton campaign, courtesy of LaGuardia Airport:
-edit-
This is too good to not post: It's Raining McCain.
Oh, I totally understand the Ron Paul thing. I don't have the perception McCain would be viewed as weaker than Hilary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
At least he'd be better than Hilary. :dizzy2:
And Lemur, have the words 'good' and 'terrible' switched meaning where you live?
CR
Oh, I'm not worried about McCain being perceived globally as weaker than Hillary, that's my beef with Obama. I'm worried about McCain having a big 'Wheel of Misfortune' with all the countries of the world on it and spinning it every morning to figure out who he's going to go medieval on next. If you think Bush entering Iraq was shortsighted and ill-planned, don't get your hopes up for a McCain presidency. I really do fear the man's temper.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Not to mention, he's opposed to free speech and he's opposed to the rule of law when its' not convenient for him. Say what you want about Hillary, at least she's smart enough to lie. He yells at his own people and tells us how stupid we all are for focusing on something silly like the law and not listening to him and following him blindly.
Sorry, I'm not impressed. The more I see, the more I like Ron Paul.
Believe me: you are not alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by DonCorleone
Except that I 'pop on' Google News v CNN. Unless GN show's a reported event going on, real-time; then Turner's boys (and Rueters' raw newsfeed) get my eyeballs.
Still, most days, same result: "Awww, crap."
---------------------------
On the other hand, I've looked at my presidential votes since I got the franchise, and realize that in nine elections, I've only ever voted for the winner twice:
72 McGovern Dem
76 McCarthy Ind
80 Anderson Ind
84 Reagan Rep
88 Lewin P&F
92 Perot Reform
96 Feinland P&F
00 Nader Green
04 Bush Rep
The '88, '96 & '00 votes, I admit, were born of frustration and anger over the mealy-mouth-ness of the major party candidates at the time. I literally "threw away" my votes there.
McGovern in '72 was a girlfriend vote. God forgive me, for I knew not what I was doing..
The other ones, I take responsibility for (McCarthy, Anderson, Reagan, Perot), and explain Bush as: an 'institutional memory' vote; at war (declared, or not) don't change leaders. I'll be relieved when he and Dick retire.
So, with a 2:9 win/no-win record (that's a .222 batting average), fully eight months out from the actual election: I pick... Hilary. Not cuz I like her, but cuz she can fight dirtier than the other two, and still survive.
I dread what happens to my america if I'm correct.
So you're saying American politics are as stupid-based as Canadian politics?Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
I like it. How do I get citizenship/vote?Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Canada isn't really that bad. Three viable political parties in federal elections (four for you, since you're in Quebec), a minority government (which I like), and the Prime Minister shows a good bit of capability and common sense. If he lacks anything, it might be charisma. Even then, he's not a boring speaker, just not a captivating one.Quote:
So you're saying American politics are as stupid-based as Canadian politics?
Ahhh, yup. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut