Obama for VP?

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It's the assholes that always win in politics these days, the ones who shake your hand as they stab you in the back. So we elect an endless series of slime. I think if the party denies Obama the win he should start a third party. It would show the power of assholeness to the asshole and hand the election to McCain. If people want to continue to support slimers they should be made to pay.

Quit being an a-hole, a-hole!!

Not a chance. I always win.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
And the other 3 guys? And the dozens of others who post similar things? Refuse to acknowledge whatever you want.

I don't speak for people I don't know well, except to say that you shouldn't be surprised when you reap what you sow. It should not be surprising that the Clintons have made a lot of political enemies, as they did it on purpose.
And please, don't talk to me about refuse to acknowledge anything when you blow off my every argument. That's my whole goddamned point here about the "hater" thing. You're just using this as an immature red herring to blow off the legitimate and logical arguments against Hillary coming from inside the Democratic party.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: SSSnail
No, they're Obotsma, either pro Obama or Bushites in disguise. I thought you were wiser than that.

You like to use your made-up word Obostma as much as possible in the hopes that it'll catch on - we get it. Just FYI though - it's not going to catch on, mostly because it's lame. Maybe give it a rest?

No, not really, I thought it's cute playing on the Obotsma and Oblahma thing, in an effort to keep even with Paulbots, Hildabeast, bitch, cvnt, wh0re, Billary, etc...

You dig?

Only the 'Paulbot' term represents a group and they earned the term by constant spamming of P&N when the guy didn't have a snowballs chance. The rest of those terms are specifically directed at Hillary and only by a handful of people. A few of them (cvnt/wh0re) I haven't even seen used here. So who are you keeping even with?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I will counter her argument with common sense, reason and logic.

The red and blue argument can stand for this rebuttal. But the argument about swing states is purely asinine. She is trying to make the case that Obama would be able to get any of the swings because he hasn't beaten her in any of the bigger ones. That takes a couple of things as fact that are necessarily true:

1. That the voting block in those swing states would still think that she is the better choice (you have to question how much influence Rush had in TX and OH as I heard the person behind me saying that they were a repub voting for HRC so that Obama wouldn't win)

Reps want Hillary to win, b/c they think she'd be easier to beat. Rush couldn't get people to support his republican candidate or abandon the ones he didn't like, so claiming he commands enough influence to swing a primary is reaching. One or two idiots behind you in line doesn't equal the 100,000 people she won the state by.

2. That the democratic turnout would be as strong as it was this primary season

Granted.

3. That her being the nominee won't have that "Everyone get out and vote to ensure Hillary isn't our next president" mindset that a lot on the right will succumb to

And how many women will come out to vote for the first woman? Both are unknown numbers.

4. That those that are voting for Obama would still cast their vote for her (I know that I probably won't)

5. The bases of both candidates are not interchangeable. Those voting for HRC are generally more of the diehard dems who WILL vote for Obama just because he is a dem. Those that are supporting Obama are generally younger voters that may or may not even turn out during the GE and independents that may be able to align themselves with McCain more.

I've refuted this in multiple threads with recent polling data showing how Obama supporters are more likely to support Clinton than vice versa for a host of reasons, despite what you and many others keep repeating.

Basically, her "argument" is crap. If she wins fair and square, so be it. If she continues to go down the path of basher all the way into the middle of Whinerville and get anointed by the supers, she has less than a 40% chance of beating McCain.

A cornerstone of her support comes from people who want a fighter in DC and they don't think Obama is a strong fighter, as much as he is a good negotiator. If her "argument" is crap because you disagree with it, then Obama's entire campaign is crap as it's based on some illusory "change" that he promises.

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: SSSnail
No, they're Obotsma, either pro Obama or Bushites in disguise. I thought you were wiser than that.

You like to use your made-up word Obostma as much as possible in the hopes that it'll catch on - we get it. Just FYI though - it's not going to catch on, mostly because it's lame. Maybe give it a rest?

No, not really, I thought it's cute playing on the Obotsma and Oblahma thing, in an effort to keep even with Paulbots, Hildabeast, bitch, cvnt, wh0re, Billary, etc...

You dig?

Only the 'Paulbot' term represents a group and they earned the term by constant spamming of P&N when the guy didn't have a snowballs chance. The rest of those terms are specifically directed at Hillary and only by a handful of people. A few of them (cvnt/wh0re) I haven't even seen used here. So who are you keeping even with?

Is this the only political forums you read? If it is, I suggest a few other places, start with www.google.com

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: SSSnail
No, they're Obotsma, either pro Obama or Bushites in disguise. I thought you were wiser than that.

And once again, here we have the real hate.

I've voted Democratic in every single Presidential election since I was eligible to vote in one (1992). Exactly how does that make me "Bushite?"
I am pro-Obama, because that's because (1) I think he's the BETTER choice, and (2) I've already voted for and lived through a Clinton Presidency, I know what that is like, and I believe that we can do better in the future. See, no hate here. I

Vic, not you specifically. Even though we disagree at times, but I think you're more classy than the throng of Obotsma that's spewing the hate that we're all seeing that you're refusing to acknowledge.

Once again, the Clinton supporters should not be surprised that the Clintons have political enemies, both inside and outside the party. I'm not refusing to acknowledge them, I'm saying you're using this to ignore the arguments being made against Clinton. One of the biggest of which, ironically, is that the Clintons have made a lot of political enemies! WTF do you think "divisive" means?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: SSSnail
No, they're Obotsma, either pro Obama or Bushites in disguise. I thought you were wiser than that.

And once again, here we have the real hate.

I've voted Democratic in every single Presidential election since I was eligible to vote in one (1992). Exactly how does that make me "Bushite?"
I am pro-Obama, because that's because (1) I think he's the BETTER choice, and (2) I've already voted for and lived through a Clinton Presidency, I know what that is like, and I believe that we can do better in the future. See, no hate here. I

Well, as someone older and more experienced then you I can say that I often wondered how good of a POTUS Bill Clinton would have been if he didn't have to deal with a Republican controlled House and Senate tat were clearly out to get him on any little thing they could find. That is why I give Hillary the experience edge. Both her and Bill were put through the mill like nobody I've ever known has been.

I seriously considered Obama, but in the end I don't see him as being a very effective POTUS because so much of his support are the same dumb asses that elected Bush and that once they get him elected their support will vanish into thin air. Indeed they will do their best to put him through the same grinder they did Bill.

It's just the nature of the game.

We need someone who knows how to deal

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Hilarious. Democrats are going to give Republicans the White House. Again.

Morons.

Yeah, I can't beleive people are stupid enopugh to vote for Obama, he's obviously still wet behind the ears.

I'm talking about you, Hillarybot.

LOL, I couldn't resist pointing out that if you were half as smart as you think you are you would have been more clear.

What's even funnier is that even if I'm only half as smart as I think I am, I'm still ten times as smart as you, geezer.

Now go back to bitching about being a poor farmer, or whatever the hell you complain about.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sirjonk
And the other 3 guys? And the dozens of others who post similar things? Refuse to acknowledge whatever you want.

I don't speak for people I don't know well, except to say that you shouldn't be surprised when you reap what you sow. It should not be surprising that the Clintons have made a lot of political enemies, as they did it on purpose.
And please, don't talk to me about refuse to acknowledge anything when you blow off my every argument. That's my whole goddamned point here about the "hater" thing. You're just using this as an immature red herring to blow off the legitimate and logical arguments against Hillary coming from inside the Democratic party.

Which part of me saying I think the supers should support and vote for Obama if he has more delegates come the convention was unclear?

You made a factually innacurate claim, that P&N didn't host hillary haters, which I refuted with proof, and you still seem to refuse to acknowledge. I have refused to admit you are right when we argue because we are arguing our beliefs, which by their nature cannot be proven or disproven. When I make a factually inaccurate claim and you use evidence to show I was incorrect, I'll concede that point.

And if you were first able to vote in '92, you have less than 4 years on me grandpa, so quit the condescending, listen son, talk.

 

[SSSnail]

I really like your style of argument, because your answers never seem to address the issue discussed.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It's the assholes that always win in politics these days, the ones who shake your hand as they stab you in the back. So we elect an endless series of slime. I think if the party denies Obama the win he should start a third party. It would show the power of assholeness to the asshole and hand the election to McCain. If people want to continue to support slimers they should be made to pay.

Quit being an a-hole, a-hole!!

Not a chance. I always win.

If you can define getting McCain elected as winning, then maybe. I know you better then that, though.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It's the assholes that always win in politics these days, the ones who shake your hand as they stab you in the back. So we elect an endless series of slime. I think if the party denies Obama the win he should start a third party. It would show the power of assholeness to the asshole and hand the election to McCain. If people want to continue to support slimers they should be made to pay.

Good luck with that. Ask the Greens and Libertarians how well it's worked to create a third party at the national level.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: SSSnail
No, they're Obotsma, either pro Obama or Bushites in disguise. I thought you were wiser than that.

And once again, here we have the real hate.

I've voted Democratic in every single Presidential election since I was eligible to vote in one (1992). Exactly how does that make me "Bushite?"
I am pro-Obama, because that's because (1) I think he's the BETTER choice, and (2) I've already voted for and lived through a Clinton Presidency, I know what that is like, and I believe that we can do better in the future. See, no hate here. I

Vic, not you specifically. Even though we disagree at times, but I think you're more classy than the throng of Obotsma that's spewing the hate that we're all seeing that you're refusing to acknowledge.

I was a Hillary supporter since long before the election but when I read about Obama I saw a some what better choice. Now that I see that Hillary is a traitor to the Democratic party and running for President to represent Hillary I will now not support her under any circumstance. She is not using me to feed her ego period.

If the slime machine wins we will soon hear how unfair it is that Republicans try to slime her. We'll all gather round and have a few tears.

What is the wretch point in America, I wonder?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sirjonk
And the other 3 guys? And the dozens of others who post similar things? Refuse to acknowledge whatever you want.

I don't speak for people I don't know well, except to say that you shouldn't be surprised when you reap what you sow. It should not be surprising that the Clintons have made a lot of political enemies, as they did it on purpose.
And please, don't talk to me about refuse to acknowledge anything when you blow off my every argument. That's my whole goddamned point here about the "hater" thing. You're just using this as an immature red herring to blow off the legitimate and logical arguments against Hillary coming from inside the Democratic party.

Which part of me saying I think the supers should support and vote for Obama if he has more delegates come the convention was unclear?

And if you were first able to vote in '92, you have less than 4 years on me grandpa, so quit the condescending, listen son, talk.

Nah, I was 17 in '88. Keep sidestepping though.

BTW, you're wrong about the Pubs wanting Hillary because they think she's easier to beat. Hopefully, you'll catch on as to what they're really doing as they continue to bounce back and forth between Hillary and Obama until August. Here's a hint: they're laughing their heads off at this thread.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: SSSnail
No, they're Obotsma, either pro Obama or Bushites in disguise. I thought you were wiser than that.

You like to use your made-up word Obostma as much as possible in the hopes that it'll catch on - we get it. Just FYI though - it's not going to catch on, mostly because it's lame. Maybe give it a rest?

No, not really, I thought it's cute playing on the Obotsma and Oblahma thing, in an effort to keep even with Paulbots, Hildabeast, bitch, cvnt, wh0re, Billary, etc...

You dig?

Meh, go for it if it makes you happy. I do maintain that you're not being particularly effective in making a point, though. All it does is make you sound like a dumbass.

Originally posted by: Vic
BTW, you're wrong about the Pubs wanting Hillary because they think she's easier to beat. Hopefully, you'll catch on as to what they're really doing as they continue to bounce back and forth between Hillary and Obama until August. Here's a hint: they're laughing their heads off at this thread.

I've actually been thinking all of today that I bet the Republicans are having a grand time watching the Democrats implode with this infighting. It's hard to believe that the Dems aren't run by a bunch of amateurs.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: loki8481
it's going to come down to the super delegates, and I think both Obama and Hillary will have good cases to make for themselves; a lot of it is going to depend on PA, though.

What is Hillary's case? She's not winning this election. She will not have the majority of delegates behind her when the DNC rolls around. IF she wins, it'll be a heist via super delegates which would piss off 1/2 the Democratic Party.

if Hillary's momentum continues and she wins PA, she can make a case that democratic voters have had second thoughts and that she'll be able to carry far more hispanic voters than Obama, especially when John "McCain-Kennedy" McCain is likely to make a huge push for them.

These are the curious propaganda of the Hillary campaign- the states "chosen" to be "important" favor Hillary. The ones where Obama leads or wins are pooh-poohed.

TX & Pennsylvannia were both states with perfect demographics for Hillary, and she was ahead in the polling when their election was declared so important.

So, after yesterday we see she got approx 3 delegates out of all 4 states. Big whoop.

Now it's all eyes are on PA, why?

Cuz it's again another state with her demographic and she leads in the polls there.

Why isn't North Carolina mentioned? It has over 130 delegates (PA has about 180). Could it be that Obama has a huge lead in NC?

Pennsylvania has NOT voted Republican in a Presidential race since 1988. Why is it given such importance? No matter the Dem candidate it will vote Dem again this year.

OTOH, while North Carolina has Dem governor and a Dem controlled congress it voted for GWB. Here is a state that the Dems could pick up. Seems more important to me. But Hillary is not leading here, can't focus here.

Edit: The rancor in this thread between Obama & Clinton supports is instructive. If the positions of Obama & Clinton were reversed, I've no doubt he wouldv'e been out already for the sake of party unity.

Hillary divisive effect is universal, affecting not only those outside her party, but those within. Everything she's doing now in this primary contest is exectly what ewe can expect if she's elected to President. You're getting a glimpse of things to come.

Fern

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
We need someone who knows how to deal

That someone is Obama, not Hillary.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Hilarious. Democrats are going to give Republicans the White House. Again.

Morons.

Yeah, I can't beleive people are stupid enopugh to vote for Obama, he's obviously still wet behind the ears.

I'm talking about you, Hillarybot.

LOL, I couldn't resist pointing out that if you were half as smart as you think you are you would have been more clear.

What's even funnier is that even if I'm only half as smart as I think I am, I'm still ten times as smart as you, geezer.

Now go back to bitching about being a poor farmer, or whatever the hell you complain about.

Your all blow and no go sonny. Thanks for perfectly highlighting how the inexperienced are trying to define what experience is.

Consider yourself DISSSED and DISMISSED. :laugh:

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: BAMAVOO
They did a scenario on a local radio show here yesterday that gave Hillary the win in all 16 remaining votes. Even if she wins them all, she will still not have the electoral votes necessary to win. Super Delegates would be her only way to win. Would they take the win from Obama and give it to her? Very doubtful.

Obama cannot get enough delegates to reach the required number either. The rules say you need 2025 delegates to win the nomination. Hillary has positioned herself as the better candidate since she has shown she has a better chance to win key battleground states like Ohio, Florida, Michigan.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Hilarious. Democrats are going to give Republicans the White House. Again.

Morons.

Yeah, I can't beleive people are stupid enopugh to vote for Obama, he's obviously still wet behind the ears.

I'm talking about you, Hillarybot.

LOL, I couldn't resist pointing out that if you were half as smart as you think you are you would have been more clear.

What's even funnier is that even if I'm only half as smart as I think I am, I'm still ten times as smart as you, geezer.

Now go back to bitching about being a poor farmer, or whatever the hell you complain about.

Your all blow and no go sonny. Thanks for perfectly highlighting how the inexperienced are trying to define what experience is.

Consider yourself DISSSED and DISMISSED. :laugh:

Why so cranky? The sheep not putting out again?

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: SSSnail
No, they're Obotsma, either pro Obama or Bushites in disguise. I thought you were wiser than that.

You like to use your made-up word Obostma as much as possible in the hopes that it'll catch on - we get it. Just FYI though - it's not going to catch on, mostly because it's lame. Maybe give it a rest?

No, not really, I thought it's cute playing on the Obotsma and Oblahma thing, in an effort to keep even with Paulbots, Hildabeast, bitch, cvnt, wh0re, Billary, etc...

You dig?

Meh, go for it if it makes you happy. I do maintain that you're not being particularly effective in making a point, though. All it does is make you sound like a dumbass.

Nah, if I repeat it enough, it'll start to make sense to people and they'll start believing me. I've heard a lot of other dumb shits in my life and I've seen a lot of people believing in much dumber shits.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
I really like your style of argument, because your answers never seem to address the issue discussed.

And that is?

Sorry, but it's already been decided that Obama, with the delegate lead already assured (since last month) into the convention, won't be accepting any invitation to be Hillary's VP. That's just the Hillary crowd spinning like a top.

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: Dari

The point went straight over your head. Hillary could've been a 25 cents a blow prostitute, but if she marries the President that changes everything? She didn't earn the right to represent America like all the hard-working Americans working in government.

Nice sexism, douche-bag!

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Yet you were just fine with Alberto Gonzales as the US Attorney General.

Now that's funny.

Hey, give the guy a break. He's handicapped (severe amnesia). :laugh:

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Hilarious. Democrats are going to give Republicans the White House. Again.

Morons.

Yeah, I can't beleive people are stupid enopugh to vote for Obama, he's obviously still wet behind the ears.

I'm talking about you, Hillarybot.

LOL, I couldn't resist pointing out that if you were half as smart as you think you are you would have been more clear.

What's even funnier is that even if I'm only half as smart as I think I am, I'm still ten times as smart as you, geezer.

Now go back to bitching about being a poor farmer, or whatever the hell you complain about.

Your all blow and no go sonny. Thanks for perfectly highlighting how the inexperienced are trying to define what experience is.

Consider yourself DISSSED and DISMISSED. :laugh:

Why so cranky? The sheep not putting out again?

LOL, your "experience" is showing.