Official NH Primary Results Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
thekad said:
To be fair, neither Clinton nor her campaign actually said that. It was just a Clinton supporter.
Click to expand...

Oh I know that, it was a clinton supporter who was introducing her, and you know those remarks are ran by the campaign first. I wonder if she decried that, or just let it go.
 
avatar299 said:
I wonder....If Bush did the exact thing, how Many of you would support that.
Interesting how willing Americans are to go war,as long as It's under a different pres.
Click to expand...
That is an easy one to answer . . . pretty much the same amount.

How many times do you see people complaining about the war in Afghanistan? Just about never . . . just a few fringe extremists. But what you do see massive complaints about is the unnecessary Iraq war.

So, no, people are not just anti-Bush . . . they are anti-the-stupid-things-Bush does. So you can drop the victim complex.
 
ndiicm said:
Isn't it funny how some people just try so hard to distort his message.

They should just say that they don't want a president with dark skin.
Click to expand...
Fuck off; how exactly did I "distort his message?" Do you really think Bill Clinton--often called, "the first black President"--"don't want a president with dark skin?" Eat a dick, race-baiting douchebag.

edit: you too, thekad
 
avatar299 said:
I wonder....If Bush did the exact thing, how Many of you would support that.
Interesting how willing Americans are to go war,as long as It's under a different pres.
Click to expand...
Wtf?
I think Bush has created himself quite a reputation when it comes to wars. People who still support him on these issues are plain dumb. He (and his following/masters) go to war for all the wrong reasons. So yeah, I wouldn't thrust this administration to go to Pakistan, with 2 unfinished clusterfuck wars still going on.
 
mckmas8808 said:
What did he say?
Click to expand...

Well some guest was on saying "the big story that people forget, was that Hilary was never the frontrunner until recently."

Then Chris Matthews (with tag teaming from Keith Olbermann) proceeded to dismantle her argument, saying that Hilary was basically the frontrunner as far back as late 2003, where some speculated she'd wait to 2008 to get into the game. Lots of yelling and such, the chick guest was all "you can disagree with me, you don't have to yell!" i think she was crying inside at being a big liar face.
 
Souldriver said:
I think Bush has created himself quite a reputation when it comes to wars. People who still support him on these issues are plain dumb. He (and his following/masters) go to war for all the wrong reasons
Click to expand...
Bush went to war in Afghanistan for "all the wrong reasons?" WTF?
 
Tamanon said:
WTF? That's an absolutely horrible thing to say, and could really backfire.

"JFK was great, but it wasn't until he was assassinated that LBJ got everything done"
Click to expand...


What's even her point? How do that history compare to today's present?
 
APF said:
Sure I will. Unless of course you feel that having actionable intelligence is just cause for launching strikes against a sovereign nation
warmonger.
Click to expand...
Hippie.

BTW, such strikes are not against a sovereign nation . . . just within one. Such attacks would not be against any Pakistan government or miltary target. Such an attack wouldn't even be against a Pakistani citizen . . . it would be against a Saudi/Afghan citizen (Osama) or an Egyptian citizen (Zawahiri).

Edit: Heck . . . we'd be helping Pakistan with its illegal alien problem. :D
 
APF said:
Fuck off; how exactly did I "distort his message?" Do you really think Bill Clinton--often called, "the first black President"--"don't want a president with dark skin?" Eat a dick, race-baiting douchebag.

edit: you too, thekad
Click to expand...

I was obviously kidding.
 
if there's concrete, actionable intelligence against high-level targets there should be serious consideration to acting on it. it may not be a black and white issue where we impose our will on reluctant foes and allies alike, but vis-a-vis Pakistan it deserves serious consideration.

i don't see how this is a controversial policy.

BTW, such strikes are not against a sovereign nation . . . just within one. Such attacks would not be against any Pakistan government or miltary target. Such an attack wouldn't even be against a Pakistani citizen . . . it would be against a Saudi/Afghan citizen (Osama) or an Egyptian citizen (Zawahiri).
Click to expand...
APF's argument, i think, is that any encroachment on a nation's borders is tantamount to infringing on the state's rights to sovereignty within its territory.
 
Amir0x said:
Well some guest was on saying "the big story that people forget, was that Hilary was never the frontrunner until recently."

Then Chris Matthews (with tag teaming from Keith Olbermann) proceeded to dismantle her argument, saying that Hilary was basically the frontrunner as far back as late 2003, where some speculated she'd wait to 2008 to get into the game. Lots of yelling and such, the chick guest was all "you can disagree with me, you don't have to yell!" i think she was crying inside at being a big liar face.
Click to expand...


That was former Pres. Bill Clinton press secretary
 
scorcho said:
if there's concrete, actionable intelligence against high-level targets there should be serious consideration to acting on it. it may not be a black and white issue where we impose our will on reluctant foes and allies alike, but vis-a-vis Pakistan it deserves serious consideration.

i don't see how this is a controversial policy.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If you know a bank robber is holed up in an apartment, sure it's usually illegal to break someone's door down, but it's okay in order to get to the criminal.

Same thing.
 
APF said:
Bush went to war in Afghanistan for "all the wrong reasons?" WTF?
Click to expand...
No, I was talking about Iraq on that one. He couldn't find Osama, so he went for Sadam and tried his best to make the Americans believe he was somehow involved in 9/11. Oh, and something about oil... We end up with 2 countries who are worse of now than before (and the US or anti-terror war haven't benefited from it either) and 2 unfinished wars.
 
this thread is one giant clusterfuck of race-baiting, tangents and anal lube.

NH polls close in 35 minutes! i predict Obama - McCain victories.
 
scorcho said:
this thread is one giant clusterfuck of race-baiting, tangents and anal lube.

NH polls close in 35 minutes! i predict Obama - McCain victories.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the accusation of sexism on non-Hilary supporters!
 
scorcho said:
if there's concrete, actionable intelligence against high-level targets there should be serious consideration to acting on it. it may not be a black and white issue where we impose our will on reluctant foes and allies alike, but vis-a-vis Pakistan it deserves serious consideration.

i don't see how this is a controversial policy.

APF's argument, i think, is that any encroachment on a nation's borders is tantamount to infringing on the state's rights to sovereignty within its territory.
Click to expand...
Agreed on the bottom part, but disagree on the, "gee how could that possibly be controversial" part. Should it be "considered?" Sure. But to have a policy of doing that is, IMO, "warmongering" by any rational definition. Just because intelligence is "actionable" is not sufficient cause to act on that intelligence, as any serious person would have to admit.

Souldriver: so the one war, you create a bunch of reasons for Bush to have. Ok, for that one war. One. Sure one bad war is bad enough, but you're creating an argument on false pretenses.
 
APF said:
Fuck off; how exactly did I "distort his message?" Do you really think Bill Clinton--often called, "the first black President"--"don't want a president with dark skin?" Eat a dick, race-baiting douchebag.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm sure the 'darkie' part was just a joke

But this:
APF said:
Obama is for unilateral strikes / and or unauthorized mobilization in Pakistan if he can't make diplomacy work.
Click to expand...
is a bit of a distortion of this
Obama said:
If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will,
Click to expand...
since you omit who the targets would be ("high-value terrorist targets") and the condition of 'actionable intelligence'

I wouldn't approve of what you said but I do approve of what Obama said. I don't know if you meant to distort or not.
 
scorcho said:
if all the conjecture about 'record turnout for Dems' is true, i can't see how that is good news for Clinton.
Click to expand...

She has no chance in NH unless every poll essentially screwed up big time. It's not even really that up in the air.
 
My prediction:

Obama- 47%
Clinton- 30%
Edwards- 15%

McCain- 36%
Romney- 29%
Huckabee- 14%
Others-

I think I'm voting for McCain here in Nevada. Thought I'd throw that in.
 
APF said:
Should it be "considered?" Sure. But to have a policy of doing that is, IMO, "warmongering" by any rational definition. Just because intelligence is "actionable" is not sufficient cause to act on that intelligence, as any serious person would have to admit.
Click to expand...
What is meant by policy? I don't see Obama's statement as necessarily outlining some official policy of launching strikes everywhere . . . it seemed more of an off-the-cuff remark about a special case (Osama).

I totally agree that launching strikes into other countries to get people we don't like should NOT be official policy. But for Osama and Zawahiri . . . they can be an exception.

Edit: See . . . I'm trying to help you!:
APF
Hello, I'm a terrorist.
To report me, call:
(301) 688-6524 :D
 
Politico hasn't updated yet.

38.74 to 37.24, Hil in the lead, NEVER MIND. It updated as I was typing!

5.31%
O: 36.84
H: 35.32

:D

Politico.com is the site to follow.
 
6% in and obama and hillary are tied. MSNBC's exit data leaked to mydd. It shows the race MUCH closer than predicted.

Obama 41
Clinton 37
Edwards 15
 
APF said:
Agreed on the bottom part, but disagree on the, "gee how could that possibly be controversial" part. Should it be "considered?" Sure. But to have a policy of doing that is, IMO, "warmongering" by any rational definition. Just because intelligence is "actionable" is not sufficient cause to act on that intelligence, as any serious person would have to admit.
Click to expand...
that's a good point, but i still don't see it as tantamount to warmongering. it may be a bit inelegant and something that a more seasoned public official wouldn't have publicly stated (which i find oddly refreshing), but it's not warmongering in the 'classic' sense of enticing or provoking nation-state warfare.

yeah, there are implications of how it could destabilize Pakistan, weaken the central government, lead to intra-state conflict between the military/gov't and armed fundamentalists, etc., but i don't see the act as attempting to provoke the US or Pakistan into warring one another.
 
ABC have it like this, with 5% in.....

Candidate Votes Vote % Delegates Projected Winner
Clinton 5,835 37% 0
Obama 5,723 36% 0
Edwards 2,702 17% 0
Richardson 709 4% 0
Kucinich 295 2% 0
Gravel 28 0% 0
Biden 22 0% 0
Dodd 13 0% 0
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Canada's election results are in
8
183
Jaybe replied
WEAPONS | Official Trailer
25
547
Nocty replied
Iron Heart official Trailer
2 3
118
656
jason10mm replied
The Smashing Machine - Official Trailer
19
329
Putonahappyface replied
Tron: Ares | Official Trailer
2
75
3K
Miyazaki’s Slave replied
Top Bottom