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.
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.
Hillary is a fighter. A dirty fighter.
Originally posted by: sportage
Hillary is a fighter. A dirty fighter.
Great point.
And exactly why we need her to restore the middle class.
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!!
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.
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.
:Q:Q:QOriginally 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.
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Clinton Supporter Poster Children, Exhibit A:
:Q:Q:QOriginally 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.
A minority? What the hell...the figures you just quoted put CLINTON SUPPORTS IN THE MINORITY!!!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.
Originally posted by: Phokus
Topic Title: Are Hillary voters willing to destroy this country for Hillary's pursuit of power?
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?
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.
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.Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Clinton Supporter Poster Children, Exhibit A:
:Q:Q:QOriginally 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.
So says the Bush supporter who backed everything Bush did, including torture.
Originally posted by: palehorse74
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.Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Clinton Supporter Poster Children, Exhibit A:
:Q:Q:QOriginally 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.
So says the Bush supporter who backed everything Bush did, including torture.
Whereas shira blatantly admitted that they could care less if a POTUS has integrity and character -- which, by any measure, is fvcking disgusting.
Originally posted by: RY62
Originally posted by: palehorse74
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.Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Clinton Supporter Poster Children, Exhibit A:
:Q:Q:QOriginally 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.
So says the Bush supporter who backed everything Bush did, including torture.
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.
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: RY62
Originally posted by: palehorse74
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.Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Clinton Supporter Poster Children, Exhibit A:
:Q:Q:QOriginally 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.
So says the Bush supporter who backed everything Bush did, including torture.
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.
Originally posted by: RY62
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: RY62
Originally posted by: palehorse74
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.Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Clinton Supporter Poster Children, Exhibit A:
:Q:Q:QOriginally 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.
So says the Bush supporter who backed everything Bush did, including torture.
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.
Originally posted by: RY62
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: RY62
Originally posted by: palehorse74
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.Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Clinton Supporter Poster Children, Exhibit A:
:Q:Q:QOriginally 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.
So says the Bush supporter who backed everything Bush did, including torture.
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.
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: RY62
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: RY62
Originally posted by: palehorse74
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.Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Clinton Supporter Poster Children, Exhibit A:
:Q:Q:QOriginally 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.
So says the Bush supporter who backed everything Bush did, including torture.
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?
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.