• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Are Hillary voters willing to destroy this country for Hillary's pursuit of power?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
0
0
why are obama supporters so pissy and immature? I just read a top Obama adviser has resigned after calling Clinton a "monster", so this kind of childish attitude of hatred towards Hillary is apparently present at the highest levels in the Obama campaign.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,542
260
126
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: Compddd
Hey guys, its mathematically impossible for her to win, the super dels won't go against the will of the people. Obama will be the nominee, chill out already.
We've been trying to point this out to Hillarybots. Unfortunately, their delusional desire (despite the near insurmountable lead that Obama has) for Hildabeast to win trumps reality. They cling to the notion that Hildabeast actually has a chance to win, despite things like FACTS and LOGIC. They'll gladly destroy the Democratic party and this nation in order to chase these delusions.
Unless either candidate wins the remaining primaries at about a 90-10% vote total, it's impossible for either to win; which is why the FL-MI votes have come back into play. ofcourse if they do revote in those 2 areas, the required total would go up by half as many total was added.....meaning we'd probably be in the exact same situation after those elections as we are today.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,712
3,518
126
Originally posted by: aidanjm
why are obama supporters so pissy and immature? I just read a top Obama adviser has resigned after calling Clinton a "monster", so this kind of childish attitude of hatred towards Hillary is apparently present at the highest levels in the Obama campaign.
Your comment itself is pissy and immature and probably deserves to be followed by something like:

I guess everybody who thought Hitler was a monster is also immature.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,712
3,518
126
Originally posted by: sportage
Hillary is a fighter. A dirty fighter.
Great point.
And exactly why we need her to restore the middle class.
Right, but not to worry Canada. NAFTA is just for the campaign. Your the chump who she'll wipe her feet on.
 

Midnight Rambler

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,200
0
0
Seriously, the Obamarama supporters remind me more and more each day of the former Bush supporters.... in fact many of them are the same people.

Now they're trying to say if you support Hillary your a traitor? GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY FACE YOU LYING A-HOLE BASTARDS!!
Actually they remind me more of the kid on the playground who always threatened to take his ball (insert your favorite sport here ...) and go home if he didn't get his way. We usually ended up beating the snot out of him and sending him home without his ball. Then when we were done playing, we popped the ball and tossed it in his yard on our way home.

I actually considered voting for him until this pathetic b!tching and whining started. Now I'm "writing in" Pat Paulsen for sure ...

Presidential Campaign Slogan # 1 : "I've upped my standards. Now, up yours."

Presidential Campaign Slogan # 2 : "If elected, I will win."
 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,921
3
0
I have a real tough time understanding how Obama supporters can be made out to be whiners, pissy, or immature. Let's take a look at the basics. . . and I'm not trying to spin here, these just seem to me to be the apparent facts of the race as it stands:

1) Obama takes a insurmountable lead in pledged delegates and popular vote in states agreed upon by all parties to count during the primaries.
2) Clinton attempts to undermine this lead by advocating the inclusion of two states that she herself and said would not count just months prior, as per DNC rules, in the coming election.
3) The DNC arrives at an impasse--two important states are being excluded from such a close election. Because both states void elections were both clusterfucks (no campaigning + not all candidates being on the ballot), DNC proposes re-votes.
4) Clinton campaign opposes re-votes, calls for original clusterfucks to be counted. Obama releases statement that he will abide by the decision of the DNC, a position he has not changed since the beginning of the campaign.

So in this campaign, you have one candidate trying to manipulate the system only after it proves favorable to her, and other candidate who has steadfastly agreed to abide by the rules set by the party, although not always favorable to him (I don't think a legitimate Florida primary is in Obama's interest).

I'm not an Obama supporter because I hate women, because I'm a radical liberal, or because I'm some brainless hopeful sheep. I am an Obama supporter because in objectively analyzing the situation it is obvious to me who the person of character is, and it really boggles my mind how anyone else objectively looking at this race can come to the conclusion that Clinton is somehow justified in her actions.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,712
3,518
126
M: No reason to think that. Obama applied his talents to winning delegates and succeeded. Obviously if he had gone after the popular vote he would have won that too. I can always out what if you because what if is only there to blind you and support your delusions.

shira: "No reason"? That's a mighty strong statement.

M: A statement doesn't become strong because you say it does. I can tell you for certain it wasn't. It certainly was no stronger than his statement that Hillary would have won non caucus primaries. In what if you can speculate as you will.

s: There are plenty of reasons. They may well be incorrect, but that doesn't mean there's "no reason" to think (or believe) them.

M: He wasn't reasoning and one can think anything one likes but to imagine that something which is based on past alternatives that can never be tested doesn't make sense. He proposed a theory that would work one way and I stated another of equal, (nonexistent) weight. So you can reason within a scenario till the cows come home but you have no reason to believe it if you can't test it. Such reasoning is filling out your bias with hallucinations you create in your head.

s: And just why do you think you can out "what-if" Morph? Is that ego I see? Ego is the biggest delusion of them all.

M: No, it has nothing to do with ego. That's you seeing yourself in me. It has to do with the fact that in the world of delusions you live in, mine look better to me and I'll go with those any day.

 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
Originally posted by: Farang
I am an Obama supporter because in objectively analyzing the situation it is obvious to me who the person of character is, and it really boggles my mind how anyone else objectively looking at this race can come to the conclusion that Clinton is somehow justified in her actions.
It's simple really. Clinton supporters are in it for vengeance. They want to let loose up on the nation the same thing that they blasted the Republicans for over the last seven years. Slash and burn legislation. They'll pass bad laws as fast as they can as long it pisses off the right wing. They're childish and would rather continue destructive policies as long as it let them get back at those nasty Republicans.

In other words, typical partisan hacks.
 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,921
3
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Farang
I am an Obama supporter because in objectively analyzing the situation it is obvious to me who the person of character is, and it really boggles my mind how anyone else objectively looking at this race can come to the conclusion that Clinton is somehow justified in her actions.
It's simple really. Clinton supporters are in it for vengeance. They want to let loose up on the nation the same thing that they blasted the Republicans for over the last seven years. Slash and burn legislation. They'll pass bad laws as fast as they can as long it pisses off the right wing. They're childish and would rather continue destructive policies as long as it let them get back at those nasty Republicans.

In other words, typical partisan hacks.
I was sort of coming to that conclusion. I don't like to generalize, though, and obviously Clinton has some supporters who genuinely believe her to be of good moral character and the more ethical candidate. I suppose I'm just calling out for that argument to be made because I am so confident that it can be shot down with ease.

The pro-Clinton rhetoric I hear more tries to excuse behavior than show any care for ethics on her part. Usually it either depends on statements by Obama supporters, an attempt at 'Look he does it too!,' or it depends on 'That's just the way politics is, get ready for the general,' or it is simply 'She is the best candidate and people haven't realized it yet / the system is unfair.' It seems to me Clinton supporters depend almost exclusively on red herrings.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Clinton Supporter Poster Children, Exhibit A:

Originally posted by: shira
I really don't care about integrity and character in a President. What I want is a President who can actually accomplish some of the things I value, by hook or by crook.
:Q:Q:Q
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Clinton Supporter Poster Children, Exhibit A:

Originally posted by: shira
I really don't care about integrity and character in a President. What I want is a President who can actually accomplish some of the things I value, by hook or by crook.
:Q:Q:Q
So says the Bush supporter who backed everything Bush did, including torture. Now it's all about integrity. LMAO@U You're as phoney as they come, just like most of the other right wing supposed Obama "supporters".

If Obama gets the Dem presidential nod, all it will take for me to vote for McCain in the general election is a VP who has an axe to grind with the illegals.
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,190
0
76
Originally posted by: techs
Total votes so far:
Source Wiki

Hillary:
13,277,974

Obama:
13,568,983

(includes Florida but not Michigan)

without Florida:

Hillary:
12,406,988

Obama:
12,992,769

Its as close as can be. And Pennsylvania alone has 12.5 million voters and I am guessing at the least millions of Democrats who will be voting.
And the polls have Hillary up in Pennsylvania at least as much as she was in Ohio.
http://www.rasmussenreports.co...c_presidential_primary
An incredible 15 percentage points more than Obama as of yesterdays poll.
So on April 5th there is an excellent chance she will have more votes total than Obama.
Obama has a delegate lead disproportional to the wishes of the voters.
Hillary would not only be foolish to drop out, she stands a good chance of winning more votes than Obama.
It is imperative that Hillary prevent a minority of radical Democratic activists steal the election away from the will of the Democratic party voters.
A minority? What the hell...the figures you just quoted put CLINTON SUPPORTS IN THE MINORITY!!!

/boggle

Anyway, regardless of who Sullivan supports, he is making a good point. I myself am becoming increasingly cynical about the political process after witnessing the tactics the Clinton campaign wins. I am now against her winning the election not because of her political views, but because of how she has run her campaign.

1.) The 'tears' moment in NH, the woman who asked her that question herself said it was a fraud which is why she voted for Obama
2.) The attempt to change caucus voting rules in NV
3.) The 'subtle' playing of the race card in SC
4.) The absolute refusal to ever do a concession speech
5.) Claiming that all Obama supports are somehow manical for not supporting her
6.) The 11th hour 'leak' of a private Obama advisee memo, while she herself apparently was sending her people to do the same thing. This undoubtedly influenced results in Ohio.
7.) The use of negative campaign tactics so severe that she is basically running as McCains VP if she loses the dem nomination, by tapping into the countries fears about terrorism
8.) The Refusal to strongly reprimand her supporters who say/go against her wishes, but then having the audacity to do the same thing when Obama's people make gaffes

The hypocracy is amazing. Perhaps the reason the media can't dig up anything on Obama is because there is NOTHING to dig up.

It's clear to me she will do or say anything to win this election, and what baffles me is that millions of people are falling for it.

Frankly, I hope Obama fires right back. At this point he has put up with so much bullshit from the Clinton campaign he is totally justified. Let's dig up her tax records, let's look at what shady campaign finances she and her husband had.

This election is no longer about who has the best ideas, or policies. Clinton or Obama are the same. It's now about who can beat John McCain, and then who can actually get these policies implemented. The Clintons are not popular in their own party, and the republicans HATE them. There is no way she will be able to accomplish what she wants to do with healthcare, Iraq, or any other measure, because the Dems do not have the votes in the House/Senate to do so. Whoever is elected next HAS to work across the isle and I just don't see a person who's consistent goal is to fight doing that.

This prolonged primary is starting to split the Democrat party in almost every conceivable way, male/female, young/old, black/latino/white. It's self destructing the party before our very eyes.

 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Phokus
Topic Title: Are Hillary voters willing to destroy this country for Hillary's pursuit of power?
Do you honestly believe the country has done well under Republican domination?
Apparently Dave doesn't realize that the discussion involves two Democrats, and has nothing to do with Republicans.

Earth to Dave. The Republicans will take the White House again if Hillary is the Dem candidate. Obama can beat McCain. Hillary can't.

Damn you are slow.
 

naddicott

Senior member
Jul 3, 2002
793
0
76
I'm concerned about the withholding of Senator Clinton's tax returns, her white house documents, and the information on President Clinton's pardons. She says she'll release the tax information once she's the nominee (aka once those who will vote for the democrat nominee regardless are stuck with her). Say there is something "open to interpretation" in some of the undisclosed information and it comes out after she is selected as the nominee. Is her tactic then to blame the "right wing conspiracy" and play the victim card to win the sympathy vote? How do things play out differently if the information was available now and the press picks up on it and Obama calls her on it as well. The whole "right wing conspiracy" angle doesn't resonate quite as well in that case. What if the delayed victim card doesn't work as well as planned, and the democratic party is stuck with a fatally flawed candidate who managed to mask that flaw when the party still had a choice.

Granted, that's a lot of "what ifs", but when you don't have accountability and transparency from a politician from the start, it's asking her swing voters to make a very big gamble based off of incomplete information. If the worst case scenario plays out and she manages to become the nominee but McCain wins the election by winning the "knife fight" using some material that was withheld in the primaries, I for one won't easily forgive her or her associates.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,912
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Phokus
Topic Title: Are Hillary voters willing to destroy this country for Hillary's pursuit of power?
Do you honestly believe the country has done well under Republican domination?
Apparently Dave doesn't realize that the discussion involves two Democrats, and has nothing to do with Republicans.

Earth to Dave. The Republicans will take the White House again if Hillary is the Dem candidate. Obama can beat McCain. Hillary can't.

Damn you are slow.
Earth to Bober, neither Obama or Hillary can beat the Republican Corp/Church based domination machine.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Clinton Supporter Poster Children, Exhibit A:

Originally posted by: shira
I really don't care about integrity and character in a President. What I want is a President who can actually accomplish some of the things I value, by hook or by crook.
:Q:Q:Q
So says the Bush supporter who backed everything Bush did, including torture.
I'm against waterboarding, and I long ago agreed that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. The difference is that I'm willing to put in whatever effort is necessary to fix what we've broken over there.

Whereas shira blatantly admitted that they could care less if a POTUS has integrity and character -- which, by any measure, is fvcking disgusting.

 

RY62

Senior member
Mar 13, 2005
771
32
91
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Clinton Supporter Poster Children, Exhibit A:

Originally posted by: shira
I really don't care about integrity and character in a President. What I want is a President who can actually accomplish some of the things I value, by hook or by crook.
:Q:Q:Q
So says the Bush supporter who backed everything Bush did, including torture.
I'm against waterboarding, and I long ago agreed that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. The difference is that I'm willing to put in whatever effort is necessary to fix what we've broken over there.

Whereas shira blatantly admitted that they could care less if a POTUS has integrity and character -- which, by any measure, is fvcking disgusting.
I agree with you on all counts. I think we only differ in the sense that I think, if you look close enough, integrity and character in a presidential candidate is hard to come by. Maybe just the perception of integrity is enough for some but I'm left with looking for the candidate that most closely reflects my viewpoint. None have ever aligned perfectly with my view of the world. Obama panders too far to the left. McCain seemed ok but now panders too far to the right. Clinton, though still to the left, is closest for now. Who knows what tomorrow will bring.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,136
37
91
Originally posted by: RY62
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Clinton Supporter Poster Children, Exhibit A:

Originally posted by: shira
I really don't care about integrity and character in a President. What I want is a President who can actually accomplish some of the things I value, by hook or by crook.
:Q:Q:Q
So says the Bush supporter who backed everything Bush did, including torture.
I'm against waterboarding, and I long ago agreed that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. The difference is that I'm willing to put in whatever effort is necessary to fix what we've broken over there.

Whereas shira blatantly admitted that they could care less if a POTUS has integrity and character -- which, by any measure, is fvcking disgusting.
I agree with you on all counts. I think we only differ in the sense that I think, if you look close enough, integrity and character in a presidential candidate is hard to come by. Maybe just the perception of integrity is enough for some but I'm left with looking for the candidate that most closely reflects my viewpoint. None have ever aligned perfectly with my view of the world. Obama panders too far to the left. McCain seemed ok but now panders too far to the right. Clinton, though still to the left, is closest for now. Who knows what tomorrow will bring.
How does Obama panders too far to the left? The guy went to an evangelist conference for crying out loud. He's also relatively conservative in many other ways. Scratch that, he's very pragmatic in a lot of ways. Mandating things from the federal government is not how America should be ran. Hillary has promised to mandate a lot of things.
 

RY62

Senior member
Mar 13, 2005
771
32
91
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: RY62
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Clinton Supporter Poster Children, Exhibit A:

Originally posted by: shira
I really don't care about integrity and character in a President. What I want is a President who can actually accomplish some of the things I value, by hook or by crook.
:Q:Q:Q
So says the Bush supporter who backed everything Bush did, including torture.
I'm against waterboarding, and I long ago agreed that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. The difference is that I'm willing to put in whatever effort is necessary to fix what we've broken over there.

Whereas shira blatantly admitted that they could care less if a POTUS has integrity and character -- which, by any measure, is fvcking disgusting.
I agree with you on all counts. I think we only differ in the sense that I think, if you look close enough, integrity and character in a presidential candidate is hard to come by. Maybe just the perception of integrity is enough for some but I'm left with looking for the candidate that most closely reflects my viewpoint. None have ever aligned perfectly with my view of the world. Obama panders too far to the left. McCain seemed ok but now panders too far to the right. Clinton, though still to the left, is closest for now. Who knows what tomorrow will bring.
How does Obama panders too far to the left? The guy went to an evangelist conference for crying out loud. He's also relatively conservative in many other ways. Scratch that, he's very pragmatic in a lot of ways. Mandating things from the federal government is not how America should be ran. Hillary has promised to mandate a lot of things.
You do realize that he's ranked as the #1 most liberal, far left of all the senators. Clinton is ranked at #16. http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
The differences are subtle, as I said, both are too far left for my liking.

As for mandates, I assume you're talking about health care. I don't believe in government health care at all but if you going to do it you might as well go all in. If it's not mandatory many won't do it and we'll end up paying even more for those idiots. Her plan just makes more sense.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,136
37
91
Originally posted by: RY62
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: RY62
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Clinton Supporter Poster Children, Exhibit A:

Originally posted by: shira
I really don't care about integrity and character in a President. What I want is a President who can actually accomplish some of the things I value, by hook or by crook.
:Q:Q:Q
So says the Bush supporter who backed everything Bush did, including torture.
I'm against waterboarding, and I long ago agreed that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. The difference is that I'm willing to put in whatever effort is necessary to fix what we've broken over there.

Whereas shira blatantly admitted that they could care less if a POTUS has integrity and character -- which, by any measure, is fvcking disgusting.
I agree with you on all counts. I think we only differ in the sense that I think, if you look close enough, integrity and character in a presidential candidate is hard to come by. Maybe just the perception of integrity is enough for some but I'm left with looking for the candidate that most closely reflects my viewpoint. None have ever aligned perfectly with my view of the world. Obama panders too far to the left. McCain seemed ok but now panders too far to the right. Clinton, though still to the left, is closest for now. Who knows what tomorrow will bring.
How does Obama panders too far to the left? The guy went to an evangelist conference for crying out loud. He's also relatively conservative in many other ways. Scratch that, he's very pragmatic in a lot of ways. Mandating things from the federal government is not how America should be ran. Hillary has promised to mandate a lot of things.
You do realize that he's ranked as the #1 most liberal, far left of all the senators. Clinton is ranked at #16. http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
The differences are subtle, as I said, both are too far left for my liking.

As for mandates, I assume you're talking about health care. I don't believe in government health care at all but if you going to do it you might as well go all in. If it's not mandatory many won't do it and we'll end up paying even more for those idiots. Her plan just makes more sense.
That has already been debunked. He and Hillary voting record were identical except for two votes. One of them was because he pushed and voted for a law that would allow an external committee that would pass judgement on the ethical lapses of Congressmen and women. No doubt it failed to pass. If you call that liberalism, then your world is upside-down.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,109
20,760
136
Originally posted by: RY62
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: RY62
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Clinton Supporter Poster Children, Exhibit A:

Originally posted by: shira
I really don't care about integrity and character in a President. What I want is a President who can actually accomplish some of the things I value, by hook or by crook.
:Q:Q:Q
So says the Bush supporter who backed everything Bush did, including torture.
I'm against waterboarding, and I long ago agreed that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. The difference is that I'm willing to put in whatever effort is necessary to fix what we've broken over there.

Whereas shira blatantly admitted that they could care less if a POTUS has integrity and character -- which, by any measure, is fvcking disgusting.
I agree with you on all counts. I think we only differ in the sense that I think, if you look close enough, integrity and character in a presidential candidate is hard to come by. Maybe just the perception of integrity is enough for some but I'm left with looking for the candidate that most closely reflects my viewpoint. None have ever aligned perfectly with my view of the world. Obama panders too far to the left. McCain seemed ok but now panders too far to the right. Clinton, though still to the left, is closest for now. Who knows what tomorrow will bring.
How does Obama panders too far to the left? The guy went to an evangelist conference for crying out loud. He's also relatively conservative in many other ways. Scratch that, he's very pragmatic in a lot of ways. Mandating things from the federal government is not how America should be ran. Hillary has promised to mandate a lot of things.
You do realize that he's ranked as the #1 most liberal, far left of all the senators. Clinton is ranked at #16. http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
The differences are subtle, as I said, both are too far left for my liking.

As for mandates, I assume you're talking about health care. I don't believe in government health care at all but if you going to do it you might as well go all in. If it's not mandatory many won't do it and we'll end up paying even more for those idiots. Her plan just makes more sense.
You realize that those rankings are total crap, right? First of all, the difference between the #1 most liberal senator in Obama and the #16 in Clinton is based on all of two votes. That's right, they voted differently two times out of a hundred votes examined and that was somehow enough to make a 15 place difference. Does that sound like a very good study? Secondly, they just arbitrarily decided what positions were liberal and which ones were conservative. As mentioned in many articles slamming their methodology, when Obama voted to fully implement the recommendations of the 9/11 commission that was considered a 'liberal' vote, because the administration opposed it. Does that make much sense to you? Oh, and according to their list Ron Paul is the 160th most conservative person in the House. (or something like that). Does that make any sense?
 

RY62

Senior member
Mar 13, 2005
771
32
91
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: RY62
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: RY62
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Clinton Supporter Poster Children, Exhibit A:

Originally posted by: shira
I really don't care about integrity and character in a President. What I want is a President who can actually accomplish some of the things I value, by hook or by crook.
:Q:Q:Q
So says the Bush supporter who backed everything Bush did, including torture.
I'm against waterboarding, and I long ago agreed that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. The difference is that I'm willing to put in whatever effort is necessary to fix what we've broken over there.

Whereas shira blatantly admitted that they could care less if a POTUS has integrity and character -- which, by any measure, is fvcking disgusting.
I agree with you on all counts. I think we only differ in the sense that I think, if you look close enough, integrity and character in a presidential candidate is hard to come by. Maybe just the perception of integrity is enough for some but I'm left with looking for the candidate that most closely reflects my viewpoint. None have ever aligned perfectly with my view of the world. Obama panders too far to the left. McCain seemed ok but now panders too far to the right. Clinton, though still to the left, is closest for now. Who knows what tomorrow will bring.
How does Obama panders too far to the left? The guy went to an evangelist conference for crying out loud. He's also relatively conservative in many other ways. Scratch that, he's very pragmatic in a lot of ways. Mandating things from the federal government is not how America should be ran. Hillary has promised to mandate a lot of things.
You do realize that he's ranked as the #1 most liberal, far left of all the senators. Clinton is ranked at #16. http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
The differences are subtle, as I said, both are too far left for my liking.

As for mandates, I assume you're talking about health care. I don't believe in government health care at all but if you going to do it you might as well go all in. If it's not mandatory many won't do it and we'll end up paying even more for those idiots. Her plan just makes more sense.
You realize that those rankings are total crap, right? First of all, the difference between the #1 most liberal senator in Obama and the #16 in Clinton is based on all of two votes. That's right, they voted differently two times out of a hundred votes examined and that was somehow enough to make a 15 place difference. Does that sound like a very good study? Secondly, they just arbitrarily decided what positions were liberal and which ones were conservative. As mentioned in many articles slamming their methodology, when Obama voted to fully implement the recommendations of the 9/11 commission that was considered a 'liberal' vote, because the administration opposed it. Does that make much sense to you? Oh, and according to their list Ron Paul is the 160th most conservative person in the House. (or something like that). Does that make any sense?
I conceded that the differences were subtle. It's hard to base anything on a number of votes. Since he's been in the US senate he's failed to vote almost 40% of the time. Of the 99 votes studied in that ranking he failed to vote 33 times. To be fair, Clinton failed to vote 17 times. In the Illinois senate he simply voted "present" so many times that nobody could figure out what his positions were. From his performance so far and his endorsements by the likes of moveon.org, Kennedy, etc. I'd call him further left than I care to go. As I said before, so is Clinton but at least I know where I stand with her.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
Originally posted by: lupi
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: Compddd
Hey guys, its mathematically impossible for her to win, the super dels won't go against the will of the people. Obama will be the nominee, chill out already.
We've been trying to point this out to Hillarybots. Unfortunately, their delusional desire (despite the near insurmountable lead that Obama has) for Hildabeast to win trumps reality. They cling to the notion that Hildabeast actually has a chance to win, despite things like FACTS and LOGIC. They'll gladly destroy the Democratic party and this nation in order to chase these delusions.
Unless either candidate wins the remaining primaries at about a 90-10% vote total, it's impossible for either to win; which is why the FL-MI votes have come back into play. ofcourse if they do revote in those 2 areas, the required total would go up by half as many total was added.....meaning we'd probably be in the exact same situation after those elections as we are today.
Hey lupi,

I don't think your statement is correct.

I don't think FL and MI are included in the elected delegate count numbers (either total or 2025 needed to win) since the DNC disqualified them long ago.

The reason neither candidate can win (get to 2025, or +50%) is because the super delegated make up about 20% of the total delegate number.

To get to 50% without super delegates means you need to win 62.5% of the elected delegates. (50% divided by 80%)

The inclusion of FL and MI won't change that. It'll just change the "numbers/totals" but won't change the %'s unless they don't add any more super delegates to keep them at 20%.

Fern
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY