Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
..
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF Interim Thread of Tears/Lapel Pins (ScratchingHisCheek-Gate)
- Thread starter Rur0ni
- Start date
- Status
harSon said:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.
Quisque tincidunt, elit in euismod gravida, nulla enim eleifend leo, eget tincidunt nulla eros vitae libero. Duis lobortis urna ultricies urna. Curabitur dolor justo, dapibus sed, consectetuer quis, auctor vitae, purus. Sed rutrum semper mi.
Vivamus nulla leo, consequat sed, feugiat ac, posuere quis, nisi!!!
Ut suscipit, nisi nec commodo tincidunt, dui quam cursus tortor, eu sagittis ante purus eu magna. Duis nec dolor. Etiam hendrerit sapien vitae enim.
Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Duis venenatis dolor id leo. Sed vulputate auctor mauris. Praesent.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Forcing them to abide by the rules? If they didn't do that, what power would they ever have?TheKingsCrown said:
Pffft. Usually, when the primaries are wrapped up after a month or two, voters of many states (such as Indiana where I am) effectively have no voice. That Florida and Michigan voluntarily put themselves at the back of the line with their actions doesn't bother me any more than the system in general.CoolTrick said:
TheKingsCrown
Banned
JoshuaJSlone said:
Well I agree with you from a rules perspective, I was just saying it within the context of the DNC actually being a "Democratic" organization...they never should have stripped the votes. I use the term "Democratic" loosely, as I know the true definition of it doesn't apply here. But I mean in terms of a vote counting thing...
siamesedreamer
Banned
Jason's Ultimatum said:
I can envision a scenario where the DEMs in Congress send McCain a bill where the second highest bracket (the 33% bracket) remains the same, but the highest bracket goes back up to 39.5% or higher (42%?). He'd probably sign that.
The thing that needs to be rectified first is the AMT though.
Of course voting after you know a certain outcome changes things. But you can't just recreate the entire circumstances of before. What you're saying not only says that ANY revote for anything is undemocratic, but you're arguing Hillary Clinton's case for her, that since no revote is fair, that the delegates should be seated as a result of the vote that happened. Like it or not, you are.
A Dictatorship would be splitting the delegates in half, ignoring a vote total. Officially counting their votes but it making absolutely no difference or having no effect.
It's not about whether their vote mattered or not. It's the same reason some Democrats in Wyoming show up in November and still vote. It's about principle.
And by the way, the only reason the Florida case against what the DNC did there was dismissed was because the person who filed it didn't actually have their vote discounted (they didn't vote), and the Federal Judge left the door open on it to be re-filed, which it will be.
You need to remember that the people that made these rules ultimately care about one thing and one thing only: Winning in November.
They can't win in November by doing what they're doing. They'll basically seceed any chance at Florida. Winning in November > rules set up by a party that ultimately wants to win in November.
The question is not if, but HOW the Michigan and Florida delegates will be seated. They will be. Revotes in both states is the most fair way to figure out how to seat them.
Hence the rest of your post is really beside the point. To argue about the rules, whether or not it matters, etc., it's all extraneous. People need to feel like their voices are heard. Telling people "Well we told you your vote wouldn't count" doesn't make those same people want to support you in November.
Maybe, but she also pretty cleverly left her name on the ballot of Michigan. There's quite a lot that can be read into that. Not the least of which is that, if you're Hillary Clinton at the time of determining whether or not you'll stay on the Michigan ballot, you think you're the nominee.
But if she had truly thought the race didn't matter she would've removed her name. The fact that she didn't does actually give her a case for not fully agreeing with the DNC at the time. I'm not really willing to debate this since people can have their own interpretation as to why she left her name on the ballot considering at that time she didn't think she'd even need Michigan to secure the nomination.
Of course, but at the same time, again, the one, overruling theme is this:
Who has the better chance of winning in November?
What caucuses do is let a potential minority of voters determine the outcome of an election, when the amount of people actually willing to hold their nose and vote for the other candidate in a general election (or even if it was a primary between the two candidates) could be much greater. People have their own opinions about caucuses. I know they helped Bill Clinton win the nomination back in 1992. But I still think they're massively undemocratic, by sheer virtue of a diehard fan's vote for Clinton counts the same as does a person that votes for her despite sincerely disliking her but just hating McCain's more. But not in a caucus. I was pretty shocked when I learned what a caucus actually was. I couldn't believe that a process that didn't actually allow everyone to reasonably have a chance to vote was being put into practice, nevermind in so many states. Oh and that it basically is responsible for Obama's delegate lead right now.
Unfortunately I'm unable to respond to your posts because I have you on ignore and can't actually see anything you've been saying. If I didn't have you on ignore I'd be able to see what you were saying and then reply to your questions, but unfortunately you're on ignore and I can't see anything you say, and am therefore unable to respond.harSon said:
Frank the Great
Banned
APF said:
:lol
harSon said:
But at what point do you concede that he may be answering, it's just not what you want to hear?
I get accused all the time of not answering questions, but I really think I do. People just don't like my answers. Infact I'm always perfectly happy to say I'm not willing to debate someone on something, say for reasons of pure ideological differences.
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
:lolTriumph said:
Nice try, but you got banned for flinging insults not for calling someone a "troll."
To quote:
You shouldn't call people an idiot because if you lower your level of discourse to that point, you're no better than they are. Just ignore them or counter their arguments. If they are a troll, they will be banned. Without you weakly pointing it out every page
To quote:
You shouldn't call people an idiot because if you lower your level of discourse to that point, you're no better than they are. Just ignore them or counter their arguments. If they are a troll, they will be banned. Without you weakly pointing it out every page
Well the reason I didn't ban you for that was because I didn't see that. And you're probably lucky I didn't considering such venom would have netted you a week instead of three days.
You guys need to chill out with the insults. Nobody benefits. Like just now, CoolTrick was pretty clearly going insane on the last page. But I didn't specifically see any insults, so a warning to calm down was better.
You guys need to chill out with the insults. Nobody benefits. Like just now, CoolTrick was pretty clearly going insane on the last page. But I didn't specifically see any insults, so a warning to calm down was better.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
The only thing I like about Meet the Fockers.maynerd said:
"Assshoooooooooooole"
Every time I'm inclined to call someone an asshole/jerk/douchebag I remember the ToS.maynerd said:
Insults, censored or not, often result in bans. Refraning from name-calling should be the minimun standard for discourse, IMO. (Though I've been guilty of it in the past on occasion.)
To be fair, I have you on ignore so it makes sense I'd ignore your question, since you're on ignore. If you weren't on ignore I'd be able to see your question and would have to make a conscious decision whether or not to ignore it without you actually being on ignore and having the ignore setting ignore you automatically. Unfortunately I can't even get to that point since you're on ignore.harSon said:
reilo said:
The problem with Michigan is that people who voted Republican since there were no Democratic delegates or even candidates aside from a few minor ones, they would be theoretically prevented to revote, since they voted Republican.
Of course, the problem there is that the previous voter rolls are unable to be requisitioned by the Michigan Dems, a judge ruled that unconstitutional. So they couldn't even figure out who voted previously. It's nothing to do with Obama, all to do with the judge.
AdmiralViscen
Banned
Amir0x said:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10526733&postcount=6129
CoolTrick said:
last page
perma
XxenobladerxX
Member
:O!AdmiralViscen said:
Tattle tale
AdmiralViscen
Banned
Amir0x said:
:lol :bow
XxenobladerxX said::O!
Tattle tale
fuck it LOL
Hillary is getting really desperate. In Oregon, yesterday, she claimed that she was the first to criticize the Iraq war, not Obama.
If you go by Hillary time, and ignore all events before 2005.
Only problem is, even using her twisted criteria, she was still lying.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/in-oregon-clint.html
In January of 2005, Obama was on record offering criticism of the war more than a week before Clinton.
Hillary Clinton said:
If you go by Hillary time, and ignore all events before 2005.
Only problem is, even using her twisted criteria, she was still lying.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/in-oregon-clint.html
In January of 2005, Obama was on record offering criticism of the war more than a week before Clinton.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Getting bent out of shape over internet bullshit is stupid. I liked Cool Trick, and it seems like our bandwagon is getting smaller by the day. Lets be civil kids.
back on topic...
I just don't understand the point of this bullshit
I'm sure candidates make up stories all the time, but when you have a history of fabricating events and the media is on your tail...why risk it? It's as if the Clinton campaign keeps forgetting this is 2008, not 1992. The news cycle is faster and much more vicious now, information is easily accessible, etc. Someone needs to do cost benefit analysis for Hillary because it seems like they take the dumbest risks, most of which have no reward. What if she really did come under sniper fire in Bosnia, how would that honestly help her campaign? jeez
back on topic...
I just don't understand the point of this bullshit
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/06/clinton.hospital/index.html?eref=rss_politics&iref=polticker
I'm sure candidates make up stories all the time, but when you have a history of fabricating events and the media is on your tail...why risk it? It's as if the Clinton campaign keeps forgetting this is 2008, not 1992. The news cycle is faster and much more vicious now, information is easily accessible, etc. Someone needs to do cost benefit analysis for Hillary because it seems like they take the dumbest risks, most of which have no reward. What if she really did come under sniper fire in Bosnia, how would that honestly help her campaign? jeez
AdmiralViscen
Banned
I'm not bent out of shape, I just don't like how CoolTrick is incapable of having a real conversation about his favorite talking points. I'm cool with the rest of the Hillary gang.
PhoenixDark said:
The last presidencial campaign Mark Penn ran was in 1996. In the so called pre-internet era. He is having Hillary fight this election like it is the 90's.
I mean look how long it took her to start trying to take advantage of internet donations. Not until early Feb. While 90%+ of Obama's donations have been over the internet since day 1.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Triumph said:
She's not my candidate, and while I think she's a better candidate I'm not sure it's worth it anymore. Far too much bullshit downplays her positives.
"Clinton's speech accurately reflects what she was told that day"
And when she found out it wasn't accurate she dropped it. So what's the problem? It's not like she researched the story for a book on this woman's life or anything.
I mean, if someone did a large amount of research for a critically-acclaimed book on someone's life, and then was found lying about key parts of that person's life and family history in order to gin up sympathy and a false connection to people and events, then I can see the justified outrage that would cause people to start taking a serious look at exactly who and why they were supporting this person.
And when she found out it wasn't accurate she dropped it. So what's the problem? It's not like she researched the story for a book on this woman's life or anything.
I mean, if someone did a large amount of research for a critically-acclaimed book on someone's life, and then was found lying about key parts of that person's life and family history in order to gin up sympathy and a false connection to people and events, then I can see the justified outrage that would cause people to start taking a serious look at exactly who and why they were supporting this person.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked