US National Primaries

[Totenkopf]

Then, again, the proverbial road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[Jae Onasi]

Well, apparently Leno, Letterman, and Stewart aren't enough pop press, so now we move to

. (thanks to Niner for linkage!)

 

 

Latest status of the Primaries--McCain's got enough delegates to make him the presumptive nominee for the Republicans, and Obama and Clinton are fighting it out for delegates for the Democratic nomination. Obama has more overall votes and states but they're quite close, and Clinton just won by a good 10 percentage points or so in PA. It looks like neither one will have enough delegates when the Democratic National Convention takes place--that's going to make things very interesting to be sure.

[Rogue Nine]

DO YOU SMELL

WHAT

BARACK

IS

COOKING

 

 

 

>_>

[Achilles]

 

Of course, after arguing for months that this election was all about delegates, Hillary is now saying that the "real" metric to watch is popular votes (which she clearly winning via Hillary-math ).

 

EDIT:

Well, apparently Leno, Letterman, and Stewart aren't enough pop press, so now we move to

. (thanks to Niner for linkage!)

Wow. I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

[Totenkopf]

DO YOU SMELL

WHAT

BARACK

IS

COOKING

 

 

 

>_>

 

 

I'm trying not to. want to avoid achille's reflux problem.

[Arcesious]

Well i deffinitly dson't want Mccain. Obama seems like a good choice, but I can't say I really know what his plan with the economy is. Hilary on the other hand... I can't trust Hilary. If you want Bill Clinton's economy-running style, why don't you just elect him a third time. Hilary obviously isn't up for the job, because all i see is her saying she's going to do things, (same with barrack), but I just can't trust her. It's that cheesy smile, the lies in the Clinton administration, and all that sucking up to the public that I simply can't trust... Right on CNN She says 'I love Indiana!'. Sure it may be her home state but seriously, that is definitly sucking up to the public... I just can't trust her, you know what I mean? She's only saying things liek that to get votes-everything she says sounds completely planned out as what the public wants to hear. I don't really like Barrack either but we've only got three choices left and we have to choose one of them...

[mur'phon]

She's only saying things liek that to get votes-everything she says sounds completely planned out as what the public wants to hear.

 

Unlike the others..................

Its an election, the candidates will say anything to get elected.

[JCarter426]

Unlike the others..................

 

Precisely one of the reasons I didn't vote in the primary. "Blasphemy!", you say? Well, no.

 

1. I despise primary elections in general--but I'm not so dumb as to not vote in a primary out of the principle of the thing.

 

2. I live in Massachusetts, and I'm a registered Independent, which means--as of this year--I can vote in either primary. Voting in the Republican primary was kind of pointless, because everyone knew Romney was going to drop out. So that leaves the Democratic primary.

 

3. It wouldn't have mattered who I voted for, because it's all going to come down to the superdelegates' votes (one of the reasons I despise primary elections).

 

4. And even if my vote did matter, I doubt that either Clinton or Obama has any shot at beating McCain in November.

 

5. And even if they did, I don't like Clinton or Obama any more than I like McCain, since the two of them seem so bent on violating the Constitution in order to enforce their beliefs on the country. And McCain isn't any better.

 

Rant over.

[Achilles]

Obama seems like a good choice, but I can't say I really know what his plan with the economy is.

Now you do.

 

If you want Bill Clinton's economy-running style, why don't you just elect him a third time.

Because it would violate the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution.

 

2. I live in Massachusetts, and I'm a registered Independent, which means--as of this year--I can vote in either primary.

You could have re-registered with a party and then switched back...like I did

 

3. It wouldn't have mattered who I voted for, because it's all going to come down to the superdelegates' votes (one of the reasons I despise primary elections).

And the reason it's going to come down to superdelegates? Because not enough voters broke for one candidate or another

 

Not that your one, single vote would have turned the tide, but if everyone that subscribed to this school of thought voted, then it might not have been up to the supers after all

 

4. And even if my vote did matter, I doubt that either Clinton or Obama has any shot at beating McCain in November.

Let's think this through.

 

The Republican race has pretty much been over for a few months now. No one is going after McCain. He's "running" unopposed. He's eating a free lunch. His numbers are never going to be better than they are right now.

 

In contrast, Barack and Hillary are beating the snot out of each other. They are on the war path daily. They can't sneeze without someone posting it on YouTube. Their numbers are most likely never going to be worse than they are right now (<= obviously conjecture).

 

And what do we see? We see McCain (at his best) pretty much tied with the Dems (at their worst). Obama pulled in 40 million in Feb. Hillary 20 million. McCain 12. With all due respect sir, what fantasy world do you live in where McCain looks like the clear winner in November?

 

5. And even if they did, I don't like Clinton or Obama any more than I like McCain, since the two of them seem so bent on violating the Constitution in order to enforce their beliefs on the country.

Huh?

 

PS: You do know that Barack was a constitutional law professor right? One of the things that made me decide on Obama is that he wants to bring us back to the Constitution. So I'm not sure why you think he wants to "violate" it.

[mimartin]

5. And even if they did, I don't like Clinton or Obama any more than I like McCain, since the two of them seem so bent on violating the Constitution in order to enforce their beliefs on the country. And McCain isn't any better.

When did Clinton, Obama or McCain ever put forth a law or make a campaign promises that would violate the Constitution? Just because the current administration seems to believe the oath of office is merely words, does not mean the next person to take that oath to uphold the Constitution will not actually take that oath seriously.

 

P.S. Have you looked at the Economic Numbers lately? Foreign Policy, Religious Freedoms and National Security are important to people, but with the economy in a downturn and people worried about their next pay check, people will vote for their pocket books. “It’s the economy, stupid” got Bill Clinton into the White House and it will get Obama or Hillary into the White House next year.

 

Well, apparently Leno, Letterman, and Stewart aren't enough pop press, so now we move to

. (thanks to Niner for linkage!)

Makes mental note not to click on anymore of Jae’s links.

 

Is Ron Paul running as an independent? After this display he may get my vote. My problem with Mr. Paul is my question of his sanity, but obviously he is just as sane as these three.

 

Does their appearance on WWE mean that all three candidates support steroid and HGH usage?

[Totenkopf]

PS: You do know that Barack was a constitutional law professor right? One of the things that made me decide on Obama is that he wants to bring us back to the Constitution. So I'm not sure why you think he wants to "violate" it.

 

Yeah, that's really reassuring.

 

Problem the dems face, though, is that fairly significant fractions of one candidate's voting block have said they'd vote for McCain if their candidate got hosed at the convention. Outside of Ann Coulter, haven't heard many reps say they'd vote hilary/obama if McCain's their candidate.

[Inyri]

Does their appearance on WWE mean that all three candidates support steroid and HGH usage?

If you eat chicken nuggets at McDonald's does it mean you support mistreatment of chickens? Let's not get jumpy just because they're politicians.

[Arcesious]

Because it would violate the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution.

 

It was rhetorical... I'm only saying that Hilary is not as good with math as her husband is, and her being president wouldn't be the same as him being president.

[Inyri]

her being president wouldn't be the same as him being president.

Why? Because they're actually two different people?

[mimartin]

Because they're actually two different people?

With Hilary we wouldn’t be worried about what is happening in the Oval Office with the interns. We would have to worry about what Bill was doing in the Lincoln Bedroom with them.

 

It was rhetorical... I'm only saying that Hilary is not as good with math as her husband is, and her being president wouldn't be the same as him being president.

What facts do you have that she wouldn’t be a better President than her husband? Remember Bill and Hilary Clinton married in 1975 and must share many of the same values. If you believe FoxNews or Rush Limbaugh she ran Bill Clinton’s White House. Funny the have changed their tune over the past 8 years and now say she has no experience. Personally, I do not believe she will get the Democratic Nomination over Obama, but if elected to the White House I see Hilary Clinton Presidency being very similar to her husbands, only with more self-control.

 

If you eat chicken nuggets at McDonald's does it mean you support mistreatment of chickens?

Yes, and if you buy gas you are supporting Muslim extremist. Wait someone at the door. I will not be back for a while the man at the door is saying something about Guacamole…maybe Guantanamo or something like that.

[JCarter426]

You could have re-registered with a party and then switched back...like I did

 

You misunderstand; that used to be the case. Starting this year, a registered Independent actually can vote in the primary.

 

And the reason it's going to come down to superdelegates? Because not enough voters broke for one candidate or another

 

Not that your one, single vote would have turned the tide, but if everyone that subscribed to this school of thought voted, then it might not have been up to the supers after all

 

Actually, believe it or not, Clinton won by one vote in my district. But you're absolutely right. That's where points 4 and 5 come in.

 

The Republican race has pretty much been over for a few months now. No one is going after McCain. He's "running" unopposed. He's eating a free lunch. His numbers are never going to be better than they are right now.

 

In contrast, Barack and Hillary are beating the snot out of each other. They are on the war path daily. They can't sneeze without someone posting it on YouTube. Their numbers are most likely never going to be worse than they are right now (<= obviously conjecture).

 

And what do we see? We see McCain (at his best) pretty much tied with the Dems (at their worst). Obama pulled in 40 million in Feb. Hillary 20 million. McCain 12. With all due respect sir, what fantasy world do you live in where McCain looks like the clear winner in November?

 

Eh, you do have a point, but still, the longer Clinton and Obama tear each other up, the better McCain's chances are. All he has to do is sit back while they kill each other for him.

 

When did Clinton, Obama or McCain ever put forth a law or make a campaign promises that would violate the Constitution?

 

They all run on platforms of immigration reform, the war in Iraq, repairing the economy, etc. None of these are the responsibilities of the president, and in order to accomplish any of these, they will have to increase the powers of the executive branch to more ridiculous proportions than they already are.

 

If they want to do all these things, they should stay in the senate.

[mimartin]

They all run on platforms of immigration reform, the war in Iraq, repairing the economy, etc. None of these are the responsibilities of the president, and in order to accomplish any of these, they will have to increase the powers of the executive branch to more ridiculous proportions than they already are.

The Commander and Chief should take no responsibility for the armed forces? Look at Article Two of the Constitution to verify all of these fall under the President authority. Any action taken by congress in regards to any of these platforms must be signed into law or vetoed by the President. I understand that checks and balance has been a foreign concept over the last eight years, but it is how our founding fathers (the ones that actually wrote the Constitution) envisioned our government working. I see all three of these candidates restoring the government back to the power structure intended by our founding fathers and relinquish the power seized in the name of fear by the current administration.

[JCarter426]

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."

 

Oh, the Commander in Cnief has every right to direct the armed forces--in times of war. And only Congress has the power to declare war. Tell me, when was the last time Congress declared war?

[mimartin]

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."

 

Oh, the Commander in Cnief has every right to direct the armed forces--in times of war. And only Congress has the power to declare war. Tell me, when was the last time Congress declared war?

And which of the three is responsible for the troops being over there? Are you advocating the next president do nothing? Are they just to leave our troops over there to find their own way home? Sorry, but I’m President now and since the war is unconstitutional you have to make your own way home. I can’t get my hands dirty. The troops are already in service the only way around that is to elect a President that can turn back time.

 

I fail to see how any person entering the Presidency would not be violating the Constitution under your definition. Getting rid of the office of President seems to be the only alternative, but that too would violate the Constitution.

 

I wonder if there is such a thing as a Declaration of Dependence, perhaps we can draft one of those. Would the British take us back or perhaps the Canadians?

[Achilles]

You misunderstand; that used to be the case. Starting this year, a registered Independent actually can vote in the primary.

Huh? So then why didn't you vote again?

 

Actually, believe it or not, Clinton won by one vote in my district. But you're absolutely right. That's where points 4 and 5 come in.

Except neither point 4 or 5 are accurate

(Well, half of 5. Not liking either candidate isn't subject to right or wrong).

 

Eh, you do have a point, but still, the longer Clinton and Obama tear each other up, the better McCain's chances are. All he has to do is sit back while they kill each other for him.

Perhaps. We only have a few more weeks until this thing is over, so I don't share your opinion that McCain's big chances are still ahead of him. Also, considering Hillary's "kitchen sink" strategy, all of McCain's talking points have largely lost their significance, IMHO. Is the Jeremiah Wright nontroversy going to suddenly have a new lease on life just because it's coming from McCain in a general election? I seriously doubt it, but that's only my opinion.

 

They all run on platforms of immigration reform, the war in Iraq, repairing the economy, etc. None of these are the responsibilities of the president, and in order to accomplish any of these, they will have to increase the powers of the executive branch to more ridiculous proportions than they already are.

Using this same logic we could argue that appointing cabinet positions is "violating of the constitution in order to enforce their beliefs on this country" as well.

 

McCain is also running on a platform of immigration reform, Iraq, and the economy, yet you only specified the two democratic contenders in your original point. Why is that?

 

If they want to do all these things, they should stay in the senate.

Where they can be one voice amongst the masses instead of practicing genuine leadership. Cynicism, ftw!

 

Oh, the Commander in Cnief has every right to direct the armed forces--in times of war. And only Congress has the power to declare war. Tell me, when was the last time Congress declared war?

I want to say WWII, but it actually may have been Korea. Do I win anything if I guessed correctly?

[mimartin]

Perhaps. We only have a few more weeks until this thing is over...[/Quote]

My prediction is the Democratic nominee will be decided sometime between August 25 and 28.

I want to say WWII, but it actually may have been Korea. Do I win anything if I guessed correctly?

The last formal declaration of war was WWII. The last time Congress authorized a military engagement was October 16, 2002 H.J. Res. 114

 

You get half a cookie.

[JCarter426]

McCain is also running on a platform of immigration reform, Iraq, and the economy, yet you only specified the two democratic contenders in your original point. Why is that?

 

Because I was only talking about the Democratic primary. Even back then it was clear Romney was going to drop out, so there was no point in voting in the Republican primary. But yes, McCain's platform is no more relevant than Clinton's or Obama's. They aren't just making promises they won't keep; they're making promises they can't possibly keep.

 

I want to say WWII, but it actually may have been Korea. Do I win anything if I guessed correctly?

 

Yup, it was WWII all right. You get half a cookie.

 

EDIT: Bah, mimartin beat me to it.

[Achilles]

My prediction is the Democratic nominee will be decided sometime between August 25 and 28.

If this thing goes to the convention, I'm going to blame you, drive to Texas, and toilet paper your house.

 

The last formal declaration of war was WWII. The last time Congress authorized a military engagement was October 16, 2002 H.J. Res. 114

 

You get half a cookie.

That doesn't count! Voting to turn the decision over to someone else is not the same thing as making the decision. I want all my cookie! (om nom nom nom)

[JCarter426]

Not only does it not count, but as I recall, that was not a vote to go to war, but a vote to call for a vote to go to war if certain conditions were met (namely, among other things, if weapons of mass destruction were found). Such conditions were never met, because of course there were no WMDs in Iraq, and Congress never voted for war.

 

Of course, not a single Congressmen could have possibly been dense enough to think that by voting so, they weren't doing to go to war. Which was exactly the point; we got war in Iraq, but Congress was still able to deny ever voting for the war in case anything bad happened.

[mimartin]

If this thing goes to the convention, I'm going to blame you, drive to Texas, and toilet paper your house.[/Quote]Don't let the rubber snakes scare you.

 

Hilary Clinton’s chief advisor was known as the comeback kid during his political career, so I just don’t see her getting out of the race until either Obama has the required delegates to win (impossible) or the DNC makes another decision about what to do with Florida and Michigan (not going to happen). So I guess that leaves when she hears Obama make his acceptance speech at the convention.

That doesn't count! Voting to turn the decision over to someone else is not the same thing as making the decision.

Oh, I agree, but it is amazing how many wars the United States has been in when compared to how many time Congress has actually declared war. You may also want to inform Obama of the difference, I’ve heard him say more than once that his opponents authorized the war in Iraq.

 

I want all my cookie! (om nom nom nom)

The cookie verdict stands! You sir, hedged your bet by saying WWII or possibly Korea. Since Korea had no declaration of war or even a congressional authorization for military engagement I determined that you only deserved half a cookie. Now if you want to take this decision further I suggest we get a mediator, I suggest stoffe, as I believe she can be completely impartial (however, I would rather have Jae, considering the resent debate between you and her in another thread).

 

However, in the interest of peace and in the name of friendship. Here are your cookies.