• 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)

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Fragamemnon

Member
Someone needs to ask McCain what he has actually thought about. Because he sure has said that he hasn't thought a lot about a whole lot of things.
 
M

maximum360

Member
Fragamemnon said:
Someone needs to ask McCain what he has actually thought about. Because he sure has said that he hasn't thought a lot about a whole lot of things.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

More likely though he hasn't thought of how he needs to pander to the republican/conservative base when he answers these types of questions.

If Obama (or Hillary) said something like this they'd probably be crucified by the media. This has the potential to be a big negative on McCain but I'm sure his time on the free-pass express isn't over yet.
 
M

Mandark

Small balls, big fun!
Fragamemnon said:
Someone needs to ask McCain what he has actually thought about. Because he sure has said that he hasn't thought a lot about a whole lot of things.
Click to expand...

Ironically, McCain won't get anywhere near the scrutiny about "lack of substance" that Obama's gotten, because he's a long-tenured senator who gives blah speeches.

Outside of a few pet issues, he really seems pretty clueless.
 
T

Triumph

Banned
Fragamemnon said:
Someone needs to ask McCain what he has actually thought about. Because he sure has said that he hasn't thought a lot about a whole lot of things.
Click to expand...
Bu-bu-bu-but Maverick!

The press is really shameful on McCain. I guess because he hangs out with them and gives endless non-answers to their lame questions he gets a pass on the hard stuff.
 
C

Cheebs

Member
Macam said:
That's not a defense. Jimmy Carter (Warren Buffet, et. al) is a decade older and is, at the very least, coherent on just about any topic.
Click to expand...
Coherent? When Jimmy Carter pops up on Chris Matthews or Meet the Press which he does ever so often he is smarter on the middle east issue and Iraq than nearly any current politician there is.

At 80+ he knows the deep intricacies of the Shia and Sunni, its crazy.
 
C

ConfusingJazz

Member
I just came back from the Democratic Travis County Convention here in Austin and I have one thing to say: Democracy is a failed system and I support a dictatorship.
 
M

maximum360

Member
Macam said:
That's not a defense. Jimmy Carter (Warren Buffet, et. al) is a decade older and is, at the very least, coherent on just about any topic.
Click to expand...

He shouldn't be running for president period. I think this is just the beginning of McCain gaffes.
 
C

ConfusingJazz

Member
Cheebs said:
?
Click to expand...

Really, its just me venting, and I just got off the phone with my brother who is at the Harris County one, and its supposedly worse there.

First off, it was in the boonies with few accessible roads to the place. So traffic was a nightmare of miles up miles of stop and go traffic. The way delegates to the convention signed up was fucked up and tarded. I waited far too long in a line that made no sense because of cramped conditions.

Sign in was supposed to start at 7 AM and end at 10 when the convention was supposed to be called to order, but because of the dumbasses that decided on the location and the sign in, it didn't close until around 12.

Then the rules committee met between 12 and 4:00 discussing who knows what behind closed doors leaving 4,000 people sitting around with jack shit to do. The speakers weren't all that great, although we did see Sean Astin, I tried to get a Rudy chant going, but no one was into it.

Finally, after the rules committee stopped playing soggy biscuit or something, they finally came out and told us to vote for delegates to the state, which was the only time the rest of us were actually allowed to do jack shit. It took about 10 minutes, and I left to get through traffic all over again.

It was a big pain in the ass.
 
T

Touchdown

Banned
It's pretty sad to me that McCain can not even give a response on a topic like contraception. He seriously doesn't know his stance on that? He can't even give a speech anymore without looking at a prompter or reading directly from a paper. I guess since he doesn't write much of his speeches this is ok.
 
D

Deus Ex Machina

Member
ConfusingJazz said:
Really, its just me venting, and I just got off the phone with my brother who is at the Harris County one, and its supposedly worse there.

First off, it was in the boonies with few accessible roads to the place. So traffic was a nightmare of miles up miles of stop and go traffic. The way delegates to the convention signed up was fucked up and tarded. I waited far too long in a line that made no sense because of cramped conditions.

Sign in was supposed to start at 7 AM and end at 10 when the convention was supposed to be called to order, but because of the dumbasses that decided on the location and the sign in, it didn't close until around 12.

Then the rules committee met between 12 and 4:00 discussing who knows what behind closed doors leaving 4,000 people sitting around with jack shit to do. The speakers weren't all that great, although we did see Sean Astin, I tried to get a Rudy chant going, but no one was into it.

Finally, after the rules committee stopped playing soggy biscuit or something, they finally came out and told us to vote for delegates to the state, which was the only time the rest of us were actually allowed to do jack shit. It took about 10 minutes, and I left to get through traffic all over again.

It was a big pain in the ass.
Click to expand...
Well I appreciate what you're doing. :)
 
S

syllogism

Member
I don't know if this is fiction but it's too amazing to be ignored:

Random post on TPM:
Just got off the phone with my wife. She's on the way home from our county convention where she was an Obama delegate today. The primary vote in our county was almost exactly 50/50. Out of about 22,000 votes cast in the March 4 primary, Clinton won by 400 votes for a 50/49 advantage.

In this county, Clinton seemed to get a lot of Limbaugh-inspired crossover votes. She won heavily in the rural areas and a bunch of my wife's collegues (Republican doctors) all admitted voting for Clinton to mess up Democrats.

However, today at the caucus, Obama won 58/42 in terms of delegates to the state convention. My wife had a blast and says she applied her knowledge from watching survivor to win the precinct for Obama. Our own rural precinct voted 70/30 in favor of Clinton and the precinct caucus favored Clinton as well but not by such a wide margin. At today's convention our precinct had 7 Clinton delegates and 5 Obama delegates and were told that they were able to vote one delegate and one alternate to the state convention. My wife observed that the Clinton delegates were somewhat divided and several of them wanted to go to the Austin convention. So she got together with the other 4 Obama delegates and they schemed to put 2 names forward as delegate candidates but all agreed to only vote for just one candidate. So they held the precinct vote with 2 Clinton candidates and 2 Obama candidates and BAM... the two Clinton candidates split their vote 3-4 while all 5 Obama votes went to just one Obama candidate and despite being outnumbered 7-5 the Obama group managed to elect the single state delegate from their pecinct. The Clinton people never knew what hit them until the vote was over and then they were really pissed. They did manage to elect the alternate though.

My wife says she never would have thought of that strategy without watching survivor. So I guess you do learn something from TV.
Click to expand...
 
T

Triumph

Banned
syllogism said:
I don't know if this is fiction but it's too amazing to be ignored:

Random post on TPM:
Click to expand...
It's probably true. I heard scuttlebutt the other day that some precinct had gone 12-10 in favor of Obama and at the caucus the consensus had been to send one person as the delegate, but then apparently another person decided THEY wanted to go to the convention. Wouldn't normally be a problem but the saboteur had a relative that was also an Obama county delegate, so they decided to vote "undecided" and have it result in a 10-10 tie. In that case, get this- the delegate to the state convention WOULD HAVE BEEN DECIDED BY A COIN FLIP. So the other 10 Obama delegates basically had to give in to the two saboteurs. Democracy!
 
A

adamsappel

Member
APF said:
I don't think you understand the argument that's being made; your response is another red herring.
Click to expand...
You're actually the only one arguing it. Everyone else understands it has no bearing on the 2008 election. But, I will concede that McCain's service record in Vietnam is better than Hillary Clinton's or Barack Obama's.
 
C

crisdecuba

Member
Triumph said:
It's probably true. I heard scuttlebutt the other day that some precinct had gone 12-10 in favor of Obama and at the caucus the consensus had been to send one person as the delegate, but then apparently another person decided THEY wanted to go to the convention. Wouldn't normally be a problem but the saboteur had a relative that was also an Obama county delegate, so they decided to vote "undecided" and have it result in a 10-10 tie. In that case, get this- the delegate to the state convention WOULD HAVE BEEN DECIDED BY A COIN FLIP. So the other 10 Obama delegates basically had to give in to the two saboteurs. Democracy!
Click to expand...
Wait, so were the 2 saboteurs Obama supporters or Hillary supporters? I got confused there.
 
R

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
crisdecuba said:
Wait, so were the 2 saboteurs Obama supporters or Hillary supporters? I got confused there.
Click to expand...

Obama. It was originally 12-10 in favor of Obama, but two children decided that they wanted to go to the convention. So since the others didn't want to let them go, they made the decision it's either them or noone - hence changing their vote to undecided.

Did I get that right?
 
C

crisdecuba

Member
reilo said:
Obama. It was originally 12-10 in favor of Obama, but two children decided that they wanted to go to the convention. So since the others didn't want to let them go, they made the decision it's either them or noone - hence changing their vote to undecided.

Did I get that right?
Click to expand...
That's rather childish. At least they're Obama supporters.
 
C

crisdecuba

Member
On another note - it's increasingly amazing to me the resources necessary to run for president in this country. I didn't know, for example, that you not only have to win state primaries to win the nomination, you have to make sure you come back and maintain your wins in subsequent state conventions.

I guess also increases the respect I have for what Obama has been able to put together in his run for the candidacy...
 
X

xs_mini_neo

Banned
syllogism said:
I don't know if this is fiction but it's too amazing to be ignored:

Random post on TPM:
Click to expand...

Just goes to show the noobs how this election year isn't any different than every other election year in history.

The campaign of experience shows its lack of preparation and redefines irony, while the campaign of hope slowly reveals its second face. Meanwhile...the republicans, who still control the media, are helping to decide who the dems vote for, yet again... wave to your foreverlords, newbamas. Once the hillbags are crushed, you're next.

On a lighter note, what I found to be the most interesting/disturbing thing of this race is that of all three candidates, McCain is the one that hasn't shown signs of arrogance so far.

If the DNC really gives a shit about the party's "health", they will force the two egos to collide into one creature known as Hillarama or Obamary. It does not matter which spot either occupies as along as they become one and show us true unity. Then, and only then, will I BELIEVE!
 
D

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
If this electoral process were held elsewhere in the world, the US would condemn it. This sounds so ridiculously retarded and primitive it's scary.
 
T

Triumph

Banned
Dan said:
If this electoral process were held elsewhere in the world, the US would condemn it. This sounds so ridiculously retarded and primitive it's scary.
Click to expand...
That's nothing. Chelsea Clinton showed up to a precinct caucus in Nevada and ran it. How in the eff is THAT legal?
 
A

AltogetherAndrews

Member
"I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was."

The idea of this dude duking it out against a person who fabricates the nature of an entire welcome reception in a foreign nation, clearly says "that is what happened" and whose campaign people later claims that she had misspoken on the matter, in a fight for the presidency of the USA, that's some seriously scary shit.
 
S

sangreal

Member
Dan said:
If this electoral process were held elsewhere in the world, the US would condemn it. This sounds so ridiculously retarded and primitive it's scary.
Click to expand...

Its just a nomination process. There wouldn't be anything illegitimate about picking the nominee out of a hat if thats how a party decided to choose their leader

I doubt most countries have a more democratic nomination process (if any)
 
G

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
Dan said:
If this electoral process were held elsewhere in the world, the US would condemn it. This sounds so ridiculously retarded and primitive it's scary.
Click to expand...

There are less regulations with inter-Party elections
 
T

Triumph

Banned
sangreal said:
Its just a nomination process. There wouldn't be anything illegitimate about picking the nominee out of a hat if thats how a party decided to choose their leader

I doubt most countries have a more democratic nomination process (if any)
Click to expand...
Sure they do. Parliamentary countries vote for the party, then the party with a majority or a working plurality gets to select the Prime Minister and cabinet, etc.
 
A

AltogetherAndrews

Member
Triumph said:
Sure they do. Parliamentary countries vote for the party, then the party with a majority or a working plurality gets to select the Prime Minister and cabinet, etc.
Click to expand...

Well, that's how it works where I'm from. You vote for individuals for county and city positions, but the election is a very straight. The US system seems pretty backwards to me, and the individual popularity contest format is down right absurd. I guess you can afford that in a two-party system.
 
S

sangreal

Member
Triumph said:
Sure they do. Parliamentary countries vote for the party, then the party with a majority or a working plurality gets to select the Prime Minister and cabinet, etc.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm well aware (and this is the very system I had in mind when I made my post). But how does the party with a majority/plurality choose who to put forth as PM?
 
M

maximum360

Member
Triumph said:
That's the scuttlebutt that I've heard. The only thing you'll find in the media is that she "tangled" with some Obama supporters at a caucus site in Nevada.
Click to expand...

I thought I heard on the news that she attempted some mischief at a caucus/primary voting site but she was escorted away by security. Chelsea Clinton is (I think) 28 years old and no dummy yet she gets treated by the media with kid gloves.
 
T

Triumph

Banned
maximum360 said:
I thought I heard on the news that she attempted some mischief at a caucus/primary voting site but she was escorted away by security. Chelsea Clinton is (I think) 28 years old and no dummy yet she gets treated by the media with kid gloves.
Click to expand...
That was CT, I think she showed up after the polling site opened with coffee and donuts for the staff, but then tried to hang around.
 
D

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
sangreal said:
Its just a nomination process. There wouldn't be anything illegitimate about picking the nominee out of a hat if thats how a party decided to choose their leader
Click to expand...
That's easy to believe, but to my knowledge the cost of these primaries and caucuses usually falls to townships, counties and states, so this process should damned well be held up to legitimate standards, none of this free-for-all nonsense. It's not the party footing the bill, but your tax dollars. This would be utterly unacceptable in any burgeoning democracy's elections that the world watched over.
 
T

Triumph

Banned
Dan said:
That's easy to believe, but to my knowledge the cost of these primaries and caucuses usually falls to townships, counties and states, so this process should damned well be held up to legitimate standards, none of this free-for-all nonsense. It's not the party footing the bill, but your tax dollars. This would be utterly unacceptable in any burgeoning democracy's elections that the world watched over.
Click to expand...
As advantageous as they've been for Obama, going forward caucuses should really be done away with, except for maybe Iowa. They leave the door open to the most chicanery.
 
A

AltogetherAndrews

Member
sangreal said:
Yes, I'm well aware (and this is the very system I had in mind when I made my post). But how does the party with a majority/plurality choose who to put forth as PM?
Click to expand...

In my system, the position goes the leader of the party with the majority of the popular votes, or to the leader of the most prominent party in a coalition. Technically the prime minister is elected by the parliament, but seeing as how the party or coalition holds the majority of the seats, there's usually a predictable outcome.
 
S

sangreal

Member
AltogetherAndrews said:
In my system, the position goes the leader of the party with the majority of the popular votes, or to the leader of the most prominent party in a coalition. Technically the prime minister is elected by the parliament, but seeing as how the party or coalition holds the majority of the seats, there's usually a predictable outcome.
Click to expand...

Right, but how do you choose the leader of the party? Thats my question, since its most equivalent to the current US nomination process

It isn't a rhetorical question, I genuinely don't know the answer
 
T

Triumph

Banned
sangreal said:
Right, but how do you choose the leader of the party? Thats my question, since its most equivalent to the current US nomination process

It isn't a rhetorical question, I genuinely don't know the answer
Click to expand...
From what I understand, the party leaders generally agree on someone who will be the PM should their party win a majority in that election, and let the public know about it. That way people know who they're voting for as PM in addition to the party.
 
A

AltogetherAndrews

Member
sangreal said:
Right, but how do you choose the leader of the party? Thats my question, since its most equivalent to the current US nomination process

It isn't a rhetorical question, I genuinely don't know the answer
Click to expand...

That is entirely up to the party itself. I'm not sure if there's a popular vote within the party or not, though. And I don't think people actually think too much about this. Of course, no one wants a bastard for a PM, but generally I think it's established that if the party can be given the reigns of a nation, it should realistically be trusted to determine the hierarchy within its own party. And from observing the insanity surrounding these nominations, with members of the same party throwing feces at one another, it seems somewhat more reasonable.
 
T

Triumph

Banned
quadriplegicjon said:
and open primaries.
Click to expand...
I don't like open primaries, but I also dislike closed primaries. Semi-open/closed like NC are the way to go- don't want to shut out those who don't want to register as a Democrat. Hell, I would have registered as unaffiliated in NC except that I wanted to be called in polls so I could make my stance known.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The Most Commonly Spoken Foreign Languages in Each State (Besides Spanish)
2 3
121
14K
Mr. Wedgewood replied
  • Locked
USA Today: Clinton in commanding position for 270 EC votes
2 3 4 5
228
38K
Already Torn replied
  • Locked
Gallup: LGBT Identification Up, Vermont Highest (5.3%), South Dakota Lowest (2.0%)
49
7K
poppabk replied
  • Locked
Is it known as the RMV or DMV in your state?
2
72
9K
Desi replied
  • Locked
Fivethirtyeight: The Rust Belt has been turning red for a while.
2
62
12K
Foffy replied
Top Bottom