Support NeoGAF

[scorcho]

Nixon did end the war.

only after ending a possible peace

 

[Particle Physicist]

it's a clear contrast to 100-years-and-i-feel-fine McCain, not Obama.

as to CoolTrick - can i get some of your kool-aid?

she mentions obama though. "One candidate only says he will end the war,"


its just odd.

 

[CoolTrick]

Puerto Rico is a state?

Oh, I see, you're trying to turn a complete clusterfuck (Florida and Michigan) into some tactile reason for Obama's head.

No, you need to look at how the Obama camp would look if they tried to ask the public and supers to ignore results from THREE contests -- two of which he pretty directly (at least in the publics eyes) would have shot down revotes in.

Neither candidate wanted wanted Florida or Michigan to count unless it worked for them. Hillary would rather have them seated as is, then have a revote. Obama would rather have them not seated at all, then seated unfairly (that large chunk that wouldn't be allowed to revote).

Grr, again, it's not entirely about who it benefits.

Michigan and Florida need to count. Period. Based on some Democratic vote total. You can't just have them not count. Yes, of course it benefits Clinton, but you can't just write off that they need to count because it helps HER -- they NEED to COUNT.

 

[GenericPseudonym]

only after ending a possible peace

Doesn't matter. He did still end the war, that's better than Johnson and better than Kennedy, I don't see how that's arguable.

 

[CoolTrick]

You can say Obama didn't help the revote but he hasn't been discounting Florida and Michigan either

Not officially but there's enough there to make the public see it Clinton's way should they wage a public opinion campaign about it.

Afterall, I really don't think that'd be the unfair thing to do. Obama did have a big hand in Michigan and Florida's revotes not going through. Even Obama fans can admit that.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

In 20 minutes comes my nightly dose of Stewart and Colbert, so I'll be off soon enough, but I will say this much.

CoolTrick, keep this level head you've had tonight and you might just make a believer out of me... not about Hillary mind you, but that you're not completely crazy.

Now who wants a brown-eye slammer?

*giggles maniacally*

 

[Tamanon]

she mentions obama though. "One candidate only says he will end the war,"


its just odd.

It's because earlier she tried to say he wouldn't stop the war because his adviser said that his plan would be open to interpretation depending on what conditions were like then.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

No, you need to look at how the Obama camp would look if they tried to ask the public and supers to ignore results from THREE contests -- two of which he pretty directly (at least in the publics eyes) would have shot down revotes in.



Grr, again, it's not entirely about who it benefits.

Michigan and Florida need to count. Period. Based on some Democratic vote total. You can't just have them not count. Yes, of course it benefits Clinton, but you can't just write off that they need to count because it helps HER -- they NEED to COUNT.

Then why did Hillary have such a huge problem with both having delegates halved and popular vote thrown out like Dean proposed?

That way they both count, and no one gets an uneven advantage?

 

[Frank the Great]

Nixon did end the war. Johnson sure as hell didn't.

it was nixon who, as a presidential candidate, convinced the south vietnamese to opt out of the peace treaty that was being worked on, because he promised he would win the war for them if elected.

plus, after being elected he attacked even more countries (cambodia, laos)

but my main point was the "honor" part. i doubt there is any historian who would say that the US left vietnam with honor. i would contend that the whole concept of "honor" in an interventionist war that is being lost (like the one now) is ridiculous and is merely another thing conservatives use to appeal to people's hearts instead of their heads. THAT's the parallel i see between vietnam and iraq. mccain saying we must stay there so that we keep our honor, when the whole middle east and most of the world already hates us just for going there and more and more people die every day, is fucking stupid

 

[CoolTrick]

CoolTrick, keep this level head you've had tonight and you might just make a believer out of me... not about Hillary mind you, but that you're not completely crazy.

I hate my going-crazy arguments.

I don't like to do that, and anyone who saw my original postings in these threads knows I came into these threads fairly level headed even if you didn't agree with me.

But after all the harrassings and sheer bullheadedness, the blatant plugging of ears singing "lalala" to every. single. argument. that wasn't completely what Obama fans wanted to hear -- on top of bullshit remarks like "I don't answer questions" (what the fuck? I direct quote in almost all my posts), how I must be trolling and baiting because I'm the dissenting opinion, and I get frustrated.

You seem to forget people followed me around, ignored my perfectly level headed posts, to just change shit to "MUSLIM". That's fucking annoying after awhile. I'm not looking for sympathy, but frankly, it's not fair to paint me as some crazy Hillary fanatic who can't discuss.

 

[scorcho]

Doesn't matter. He did still end the war, that's better than Johnson and better than Kennedy, I don't see how that's arguable.

yeah. then there's that whole messy secret bombing campaign in Cambodia. the rise of the Khmer Rouge. or the Phoenix Program.

Nixon deserves nothing for Vietnam, but that's a topic for another thread.

 

[CoolTrick]

Then why did Hillary have such a huge problem with both having delegates halved and popular vote thrown out like Dean proposed?

That way they both count, and no one gets an uneven advantage?

Wait, for clarification, did Dean propose SPLITTING the delegates or just giving each delegate half of a vote?

You can't split those delegates 50/50. That's genuinely unfair. The delegates need to be awarded based on some sort of vote total. Period. She had every right to oppose that.

And, frankly, as well as the popular vote, at least in Florida. Mainly because you can't just ignore it -- that's a shitload of voters, which is why the DNC will be forced to seat those delegates -- but there's also no way to divide a popular vote total. So if you're in Hillary's position, you count all of the popular vote.

 

[CoolTrick]

By the way, it's easy to keep a level head because some of the more obnoxious Obama supporters (or should I say TROLLS) aren't here, like harSon, Triumph, slurpy, reilo, etc.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Wait, for clarification, did Dean propose SPLITTING the delegates or just giving each delegate half of a vote?

You can't split those delegates 50/50. That's genuinely unfair. The delegates need to be awarded based on some sort of vote total. Period. She had every right to oppose that.

And, frankly, as well as the popular vote, at least in Florida. Mainly because you can't just ignore it -- that's a shitload of voters, which is why the DNC will be forced to seat those delegates -- but there's also no way to divide a popular vote total. So if you're in Hillary's position, you count all of the popular vote.

i believe it was making 1 delegate count for .5


did hillary propose anything other than seating everything as is? i dont remember, but if not, its a bit of her own fault for not bothering to negotiate.

 

[Tamanon]

Wait, for clarification, did Dean propose SPLITTING the delegates or just giving each delegate half of a vote?

You can't split those delegates 50/50. That's genuinely unfair. The delegates need to be awarded based on some sort of vote total. Period. She had every right to oppose that.

And, frankly, as well as the popular vote, at least in Florida. Mainly because you can't just ignore it -- that's a shitload of voters, which is why the DNC will be forced to seat those delegates -- but there's also no way to divide a popular vote total. So if you're in Hillary's position, you count all of the popular vote.

To be fair, it's genuinely unfair to count the original delegates period or to not allow those who voted in Michigan to vote in any revote.

 

[CoolTrick]

i believe it was making 1 delegate count for .5

Well, she won't back that for the same reason Obama won't back revotes in Michigan and Florida.

If he won't concede at all on this issue, why should she?

And frankly I think she has every right to considering she's fully behind revotes in Michigan and Florida, even though she knows it would certainly lessen her margin of victories in those states.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Well, she won't back that for the same reason Obama won't back revotes in Michigan and Florida.

If he won't concede at all on this issue, why should she?

And frankly I think she has every right to considering she's fully behind revotes in Michigan and Florida, even though she knows it would certainly lessen her margin of victories in those states.

so basically both candidates wanted it their way without any compromises.. well. . i guess the blame lies in both their hands.

 

[CoolTrick]

To be fair, it's genuinely unfair to count the original delegates period or to not allow those who voted in Michigan to vote in any revote.

I agree for the most part but the problem is a little greyer than that. Michigan is a technically closed primary but you declare your affiliation at the polls (I'm not sure if this is for everyone or just independants -- probably everyone?).

But since it's technically closed, if people declared themselves Republican, it's not hard to understand why there's not at least SOME case for not wanting those who voted Republican to revote -- because then you might as well just have both parties contribute to the vote, which is against the rules of the Michigan primary.

But there's no constitutional way to prevent that, hence the issue.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

I hate my going-crazy arguments.

I don't like to do that, and anyone who saw my original postings in these threads knows I came into these threads fairly level headed even if you didn't agree with me.

But after all the harrassings and sheer bullheadedness, the blatant plugging of ears singing "lalala" to every. single. argument. that wasn't completely what Obama fans wanted to hear -- on top of bullshit remarks like "I don't answer questions" (what the fuck? I direct quote in almost all my posts), how I must be trolling and baiting because I'm the dissenting opinion, and I get frustrated.

You seem to forget people followed me around, ignored my perfectly level headed posts, to just change shit to "MUSLIM". That's fucking annoying after awhile. I'm not looking for sympathy, but frankly, it's not fair to paint me as some crazy Hillary fanatic who can't discuss.

I'm joking with ya dammit!

I'm in an odd love tryst with APF for christs sake!

I may not agree with you on a fuckton, but I'm not about to belittle you. I'll leave that up to others thank you very much.

It didn't help you though that you coined the term Obamapologists around these parts. Just because we stump for the guy doesn't make us braindead. Or cultists for that matter.

We (just like you) really believe our candidate is better for the country. Healing racial divides across continents, in ways that Clinton can't. His very appearance can change the way the middle east looks at us, and his experiences living abroad give him insight that no other candidate has.

He's laid forth a plan for our crumbling housing market, and at the same time hasn't uttered a word about the personal indiscretions about any other candidate. His "insults" if they are to really be called such, are all policy based.

Hillary Clinton has been getting personal for a while now. Implying Obama is a Muslim (still don't get the insult there), that his preacher isn't good enough for her, that he's nothing but words with no content.

I have no ill will toward you CoolTrick, I don't agree with you, but I'd still be your friend. ;P

 

[Tamanon]

I agree for the most part but the problem is a little greyer than that. Michigan is a technically closed primary but you declare your affiliation at the polls (I'm not sure if this is for everyone or just independants -- probably everyone?).

But since it's technically closed, if people declared themselves Republican, it's not hard to understand why there's not at least SOME case for not wanting those who voted Republican to revote -- because then you might as well just have both parties contribute to the vote, which is against the rules of the Michigan primary.

But there's no constitutional way to prevent that, hence the issue.

Yes, but if told that your vote doesn't count, and if your candidate is not on the ticket, then why would you vote Democratic.

And now you see why the Michigan revote was shot down, because it's against the law to access those previous election rolls.

 

[CoolTrick]

so basically both candidates wanted it their way without any compromises.. well. . i guess the blame lies in both their hands.

Yeah but it's hard to put Clinton in the wrong when she's been willing to take the steps to officially redoing them and Obama won't. If Obama won't budge, why should she?

It didn't help you though that you coined the term Obamapologists around these parts. Just because we stump for the guy doesn't make us braindead. Or cultists for that matter.

It doesn't but there is still a lot of sheep-mentality that goes on here.

It's easy to say what you're saying when you agree with them. Try arguing with them. It's a nightmare. Take reilo for example: When debating electability, wants to argue Obama is better because he can turn Mississippi and Louisiana blue; argues that Hillary has never been behind in a state, rallied, and then won it.

You can't debate with those people.

 

[CoolTrick]

Yes, but if told that your vote doesn't count, and if your candidate is not on the ticket, then why would you vote Democratic.

You have to look at the big picture though. Remember what we were discussing?

-Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan, so it shouldn't count.
-Obama couldn't campaign in Florida, so it shouldn't count.
-Puerto Rico isn't a state, so it shouldn't count.
-The Washing primary was nonbinding, so the fact that the primary results were actually quite close is irrelevant and shouldn't even be looked at -- even in discussions of electability.

The Obama campaign loves to critisize the Clinton campaign as deeming certain states important, but if it honestly asks voters to ignore all these results, they're going to get wacked hard real fast.

And now you see why the Michigan revote was shot down, because it's against the law to access those previous election rolls.

I don't think that was why the Michigan vote was shot down.

If Obama had really wanted a revote, it would've happened. Which is worse:

-Spending this time debating about whether or not Michigan should count at all

-Or spending this time debating about the specifics of an eventual Michigan revote.

Which is more progressive? I understand there are complications in a revote but Obama deserves the flack he gets for shutting down a revote. I mean, the funds were there, that's what's awful.

Obama should've sucked it up and let Michigan revote. The fact that the funds were there is REALLY bad if the Clintons want to get the issue going, because it means that Obama denied the revote PURELY for political reasons that he won't be able to hide behind.

 

[Tamanon]

You have to look at the big picture though. Remember what we were discussing?

-Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan, so it shouldn't count.
-Obama couldn't campaign in Florida, so it shouldn't count.
-Puerto Rico isn't a state, so it shouldn't count.
-The Washing primary was nonbinding, so the fact that the primary results were actually quite close is irrelevant and shouldn't even be looked at -- even in discussions of electability.

The Obama campaign loves to critisize the Clinton campaign as deeming certain states important, but if it honestly asks voters to ignore all these results, they're going to get wacked hard real fast.




I don't think that was why the Michigan vote was shot down.



If Obama had really wanted a revote, it would've happened. Which is worse:

-Spending this time debating about whether or not Michigan should count at all

-Or spending this time debating about the specifics of an eventual Michigan revote.

Which is more progressive? I understand there are complications in a revote but Obama deserves the flack he gets for shutting down a revote. I mean, the funds were there, that's what's awful.

No, the Michigan revote was ruled unconstitutional in court. Nobody could've pushed it through.

And the reason the states shouldn't count is because the DNC WHO CONTROLS THE DELEGATES SAYS SO. That has been the Obama campaign position this entire time, whatever the DNC says, they're good with. That's all. In fact he's even said that he hopes somehow the delegates can be seated but it's up to the DNC.

 

[CoolTrick]

No, the Michigan revote was ruled unconstitutional in court. Nobody could've pushed it through.

What were the specifics?

I thought what was unconstitutional was banning people (and gathering data on who voted what) that voted Republican from participating again.

Obama doesn't come off as a winner because he still didn't publically support it, and there's no excuse for not supporting it in Florida.

There's nothing really about Obama's handling of Michigan and Florida that is helpful to him.

-You can say Michigan's revote is unconstitutional. Okay, but Florida's isn't. (And a federal judge actually left the door open for that case to be filed.)
-You can say he wasn't on the ballot in Michigan. Okay, but he was in Florida.
-You can say he couldn't get the funds (in Florida). Okay, but he could in Michigan.

 

[Tamanon]

What were the specifics?

I thought what was unconstitutional was banning people (and gathering data on who voted what) that voted Republican from participating again.

Obama doesn't come off as a winner because he still didn't publically support it, and there's no excuse for not supporting it in Florida.

There's nothing really about Obama's handling of Michigan and Florida that is helpful to him.

-You can say Michigan's revote is unconstitutional. Okay, but Florida's isn't. (And a federal judge actually left the door open for that case to be filed.)
-You can say he wasn't on the ballot in Michigan. Okay, but he was in Florida.
-You can say he couldn't get the funds (in Florida). Okay, but he could in Michigan.

Where has he ever opposed a revote in Florida? Besides CoolTrickLand?

 

[CoolTrick]

And the reason the states shouldn't count is because the DNC WHO CONTROLS THE DELEGATES SAYS SO.

The whole "Obama respects the DNC" -- that's all Obama PR, though. Everyone knows it.

And the reason the states shouldn't count is because the DNC WHO CONTROLS THE DELEGATES SAYS SO.

You're missing the point.

It's like what I said earlier: Ultimately, for Democrats, it's not mainly about who it benefits. Michigan and Florida need to count. And voters in those states need to feel like their voices were heard. The DNC cannot ignore it. It by default benefits Hillary Clinton, but frankly, rules-schmules, which is why Hillary can push this argument: Rules-schmules give way to winning in November. That's the entire point of the Democratic party. If voters in those states feel disenfranchised, that's going to really hinder the Democratic prospects in November. That can't happen.

 

[thekad]

You have to look at the big picture though. Remember what we were discussing?

-Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan, so it shouldn't count.
-Obama couldn't campaign in Florida, so it shouldn't count.
-Puerto Rico isn't a state, so it shouldn't count.
-The Washing primary was nonbinding, so the fact that the primary results were actually quite close is irrelevant and shouldn't even be looked at -- even in discussions of electability.

You're comparing that with Hillary's claims that actual states, in actual contested primaries, don't count for a variety of reasons including: 1) "Proud" black people 2) I won it before I lost it & 3) Electoral count

Sorry, but even you can see these situations aren't comparable. I can see you were trying to be clever, but you should leave that to APF.

Michigan and Florida will count in the end, by the way. Really, you just want them to count in a way that will benefit Hillary.

 

[CoolTrick]

Where has he ever opposed a revote in Florida? Besides CoolTrickLand?

I'm not willing to debate this. If your Obama support is because you genuinely believe in him and what he offers, then extend the same benefit to yourself. Don't take that position just to argue with me.

However, if you honestly, genuinely believe that Obama has done everything he could to help Michigan and Florida revote -- you know, for purposes of uniting the Democratic party (I thought that was one of his big appeals, as a uniter) -- then we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Tamanon]

I'm not willing to debate this. If your Obama support is because you genuinely believe in him and what he offers, then extend the same benefit to yourself. Don't take that position just to argue with me.

However, if you honestly, genuinely believe that Obama has done everything he could to help Michigan and Florida revote -- you know, for purposes of uniting the Democratic party (I thought that was one of his big appeals, as a uniter) -- then we'll have to agree to disagree.

No, you made a statement of supposed fact. I'm asking for evidence of it.

 

[CoolTrick]

You're comparing that with Hillary's claims that actual states, in actual contested primaries, don't count for a variety of reasons including: 1) "Proud" black people 2) I won it before I lost it & 3) Electoral count

Oh but I can play Tamanon too.

"Where did Hillary ever say results didn't count?"

She can, of course, give REASONS she lost, and I don't see what's so wrong about that.

Michigan and Florida will count in the end, by the way. Really, you just want them to count in a way that will benefit Hillary.

Except that short of undemocratically splitting the delegates -- which, those people aren't stupid, it'd piss them off -- the end result WILL benefit Hillary, so I don't know what your point is.

 

[CoolTrick]

No, you made a statement of supposed fact. I'm asking for evidence of it.

We've already had this "Show me evidence Obama blocked revotes" argument before in this thread. I'm not willing to search for evidence if you're just asking for the hell of it.

Again, if you genuinely think Obama has done everything he could've to support revotes, then we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not going to go search for articles on things that are not only old discussion points but on things that should be obvious.

 

[Tamanon]

We've already had this "Show me evidence Obama blocked revotes" argument before in this thread. I'm not willing to search for evidence if you're just asking for the hell of it.

Again, if you genuinely think Obama has done everything he could've to support revotes, then we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not going to go search for articles on things that are not only old discussion points but on things that should be obvious.

I never said he did. He has taken the stance that the DNC decides everything. That's a perfectly fair stance.

 

[Incognito]

April 29th to May 6th.

They're sending me to the Greenville office.

Very excited!

 

[CoolTrick]

I never said he did. He has taken the stance that the DNC decides everything. That's a perfectly fair stance.

It's also bullshit PR and not even the pundits are really giving that line much weight.

It's a safe position to take not because it's just diplomatic, but because Obama knows the DNC is not going to relinquish its stance until it's absolutely neccesary because it'd risk undermining those very sanctions in the firs place.

 

[Stinkles]

By the way, it's easy to keep a level head because some of the more obnoxious Obama supporters (or should I say TROLLS) aren't here, like harSon, Triumph, slurpy, reilo, etc.

I don't think you can be a troll if you're a fanboy in a thread that's predominantly about the thing you're a fan of.

 

[CoolTrick]

I don't think you can be a troll if you're a fanboy in a thread that's predominantly about the thing you're a fan of.

You obviously never saw Drinky during the time of the PS2 dominance. You can most certainly be in the majority and troll.

 

[Stinkles]

You obviously never saw Drinky during the time of the PS2 dominance. You can most certainly be in the majority and troll.

Drinky is an mystery wrapped up in an enigma wearing a pee-soaked fur coat.

 

[Triumph]

I don't think you can be a troll if you're a fanboy in a thread that's predominantly about the thing you're a fan of.

It's funny... if I'm an Obama troll, I wonder what that makes CoolTrick? Especially after some of the genuinely laughable posts on this page.

She's lost. It's all over but the screaming and crying. This is like the death of Rasputin... it's going to be a long, drawn out affair. Stay awhile, grab a drink and a cigarette, won't you? It makes for good theater.

 

[scorcho]

but we should count the popular vote!
the Electoral College totals!
primaries matter more than caucuses!

i have an idea, let's bring back the three-fifths compromise! Obama's a Muslim-sympathizer! Clinton 2008! (as you can see i managed to get into CoolTrick's stash)

 

[Triumph]

but we should count the popular vote!
the Electoral College totals!
primaries matter more than caucuses!

i have an idea, let's bring back the three-fifths compromise! Obama's a Muslim-sympathizer! Clinton 2008! (as you can see i managed to get into CoolTrick's stash)

You guys, you're looking at things the wrong way. How can Obama be all about change when Hillary won every single state with "New" in the name? COME ON!

 

[Particle Physicist]

Yeah but it's hard to put Clinton in the wrong when she's been willing to take the steps to officially redoing them and Obama won't. If Obama won't budge, why should she?

huh? they were both willing to take steps towards a revote, but only under their own conditions.. the revote didnt happen because neither of them wanted to concede even a little bit.

Michigan and Florida need to count. And voters in those states need to feel like their voices were heard.

im from florida. i didnt vote.. i also know many many other people that didnt vote because we were told that our votes wouldnt count before the election.. if the votes counted without a revote, i.. and many others.. will feel completely scammed.. thanks for trying to speak for us though.

 

[CoolTrick]

huh? they were both willing to take steps towards a revote, but only under their own conditions.. the revote didnt happen because neither of them wanted to concede even a little bit.

Oh really?

Where's the evidence that Obama was for a revote? THAT I genuinely want to hear. Afterall, I got evidence for you specifically about this.

im from florida. i didnt vote.. i also know many many other people that didnt vote because we were told that our votes wouldnt count before the election.. if the votes counted without a revote, i.. and many others.. will feel completely scammed.. thanks for trying to speak for us though.

That logic makes no sense though.

"If voters want to feel like their voices were heard, well it's better to silence everyone than only a few!"

 

[Hitokage]

Obviously, voters who pay attention don't matter. Only voters who vote in the face of stripped delegates need to be heard.

 

[CoolTrick]

Obviously, voters who pay attention don't matter. Only voters who vote in the face of stripped delegates need to be heard.

Gotta love the spin.

So, I'm assuming that the vote result in Puerto Rico DOES matter, according to this, correct?

 

[mckmas8808]

Why is Hannity still saying that Obama loves a white guy named Bill Ayers that's an ex-terrorist?

 

[Stinkles]

That logic makes no sense though.

"If voters want to feel like their voices were heard, well it's better to silence everyone than only a few!"

If I told you a coin toss was worth nothing, you'd toss. If I told you it was your life or a million dollars, you'd think very hard about it.

His logic makes perfect sense.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Oh really?

Where's the evidence that Obama was for a revote? THAT I genuinely want to hear. Afterall, I got evidence for you specifically about this.

im pretty sure he was down for a caucus.

That logic makes no sense though.

"If voters want to feel like their voices were heard, well it's better to silence everyone than only a few!"

no.. not really.. more like.. make it fair, or dont do it at all.

 

[CoolTrick]

im pretty sure he was down for a caucus.

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol I don't think even the most hardened Obama fan can blame Clinton for poo-pooing THAT.

 

[Triumph]

Gotta love the spin.

So, I'm assuming that the vote result in Puerto Rico DOES matter, according to this, correct?

Well, unless they vote for Obama. Of course.

 

[Particle Physicist]

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol I don't think even the most hardened Obama fan can blame Clinton for poo-pooing THAT.

exactly my point. they each wanted it their way.