|
|
Post by seanx on Jan 16, 2008 18:51:32 GMT -5
......ok first New Hampshire polls are off almost 14% even though they have an error % or 3-4%.......then Edwards and Obama pull out of Michigan and hand those delegates to her.....now according to mainstream media the recession is coming and she is the only candidate talking about how she is going to "fix" the economy.............better get your SHOCKER ready, Big Jim........see the blind sheep being led to slaughter...............
every candidate running is a lame duck and puppet........both sides of the aisle and Bloomberg as well (if he attempts an independent run)..............ideologically, this is not the same country I pledged allegiance to as a kid
|
|
|
|
Post by freddyv on Jan 16, 2008 20:25:54 GMT -5
to my knowledge, michigan was stripped of all its delegates by the democratic party for having their primary too early. so she won, but she got nothing out of it.
I don't know why she didn't ask to have her name removed from the ballot too. kinda dumb. edwards and obama did it as a sign of solidarity.
|
|
|
|
Post by HBGOnline on Jan 16, 2008 20:44:16 GMT -5
to my knowledge, michigan was stripped of all its delegates by the democratic party for having their primary too early. so she won, but she got nothing out of it. I don't know why she didn't ask to have her name removed from the ballot too. kinda dumb. edwards and obama did it as a sign of solidarity. Freddy you are correct!!!! Pretty smart for a guitar player with all your political knowledge!!! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by freddyv on Jan 16, 2008 21:01:33 GMT -5
I also have a degree in biomedical engineering, believe it or not  I'm a man of many hats. |
|
|
|
Post by seanx on Jan 17, 2008 6:47:39 GMT -5
to my knowledge, michigan was stripped of all its delegates by the democratic party for having their primary too early. so she won, but she got nothing out of it. I don't know why she didn't ask to have her name removed from the ballot too. kinda dumb. edwards and obama did it as a sign of solidarity. is this true? I heard that awhile ago, but then they said on one news broadcast in the past week(I believe wgal channel 8) that the delegates were reduced and the number was still up in the air.......if so, it'd be really stupid not to put a name on the ballot....anyone got a link to exact info? if not, I'll go look |
|
|
|
Post by freddyv on Jan 17, 2008 8:19:39 GMT -5
from www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/MI-D.phtml:On 1 December 2007, the DNC has determined that the date of Michigan's 15 January 2008 primary violates party rules and has decided to strip the state of its delegation. The determination was made official on 5 January 2008. Michigan had 128 pledged delegate votes (83 district, 28 at-large, and 17 PLEO) and 28 unpledged delegate votes (17 unpledged DNC members, 1 Governor, 2 Democratic U.S. Senators, 6 Democratic U.S. House Members, and 2 add-ons). Total delegate votes changed from 156 to 0. or if you prefer a major media outlet, from www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#MI:Special Notes • Michigan lost all 156 of its Democratic delegates for allocating delegates outside of the Democratic National Committee-approved timeframe. • Michigan lost 30 of its 60 Republican delegates for allocating delegates outside of the Republican National Committee-approved timeframe. |
|
|
|
Post by seanx on Jan 17, 2008 12:12:27 GMT -5
thanks freddy.....so that makes this thing even more interesting.......why would the Michigan democrats in charge move up their primary if they were going to lose delegates? perhaps the reason might be that Obama was polling 70% to Hillary's 23%, which even with a corrupt 14% point swing would not be enough to garner Hillary a victory and the delegates would go to Obama giving him a huge lead.................this way they stay even. With all the unemployment and housing crisis in the Michigan urban areas, due in a large part to NAFTA and other economic policies put into effect during the Clinton/Bush eras, is it any wonder the voters were looking for some sort of change?...........
|
|
|
|
Post by freddyv on Jan 17, 2008 14:12:30 GMT -5
I think the entire thing is bizarre. Michigan is not the only state that this has happened to. Florida, Michigan, South Carolina, Wyoming, and New Hampshire all lost 1/2 of their Republican delegates for having their primaries before February 5. Michigan and Florida lost all of their Democratic delegates. Iowa and Nevada were not penalized for going early as they hold caucuses and their state delegates are not officially pledged until the national conventions take place, which is well after February 5.
The early primary states chose to sacrifice their delegates in order to have more influence in the election process i.e. candidates may drop out of the election after poor showings in these states, subsequent states' voters' preferences would be swayed by the early states' election results, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by seanx on Jan 17, 2008 14:21:14 GMT -5
how does losing delegates have more influence?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mickulz on Jan 17, 2008 14:56:20 GMT -5
If you would like a little "quick" background on this:
Michigan wanted to be more important than it was, so it decided to move its primaries up (the Republicans got penalized also). The national conventions said if you do it, we will strip you. The Michigan peeps thought they were bluffing, so they called them out, and guess what. They were not bluffing. This was all done and decided prior to any candidate stating they would run in the primary.
The part that becomes tricky is that the conventions still have the option to count those votes in the long run.
|
|
|
|
Post by DeafnDum on Jan 17, 2008 19:32:17 GMT -5
I hate her. Politico Slut Bag.
Her face is plastic, her looks are rehearsed, her smile is fake as hell. She brings nothing to the table. She flip flops on everything but her husband. Even with her own name.
Its political packaging. I need to subscribe to a "Modern Sniper" web sight or something ...
|
|
|
|
Post by seanx on Jan 17, 2008 20:07:10 GMT -5
thanx MicKulz......yeah, what kind of thing is that? I guess we'll see if things are really corrupt if there is some sort of convention contoversy at the end......agreed?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mickulz on Jan 20, 2008 21:23:18 GMT -5
Oh, I am sure there is corruption. I was just addressing the Michigan part of the convo.
I am telling you right now, if Clinton is on the ticket, I am voting Replublican, I do not care who it is. I WILL NOT write in someone, because if too many people right in (say Ron Paul) it could hand the presidency to her. I hope that if Ron does not get the nod, I hope he publicly endorses someone.
|
|
|
|
Post by freddyv on Jan 21, 2008 8:17:56 GMT -5
I am telling you right now, if Clinton is on the ticket, I am voting Replublican, I do not care who it is. Amen to that! |
|
|
|
Post by HBGOnline on Jan 21, 2008 8:22:57 GMT -5
I am telling you right now, if Clinton is on the ticket, I am voting Replublican, I do not care who it is. I think the rest of the country feels this way as well. These last few weeks it seems Bill is running instead of Hillary. If McCain wins it would be like voting for a Dem. His involvement last year during that illegal alien bill, turned me off big time. I'd personally like to see a Romney/Thompson ticket. If people can get pass the Mormon issue, Romney has a proven track record in the business world of turning companies around. It would be hard to do in 4 years, but 8 years he'd get the Red, White and Blue humming along. Other than being a governor, he is also a political outsider that I feel we need in the White House, unlike Clinton and McCain. Plus Thompson has a hottie for a wife. NUFF SAID!!! ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by HBGOnline on Jan 22, 2008 16:29:09 GMT -5
Did anyone watch the debate last night?
Glad to see Hillary will give us Universal Healthcare. I thought she tried to ram that down our throats when Bill was in office and failed.
Thought it was great to watch "millionares" try to act like they cared about the poor, more than the other guy/woman.
All 3 want to throw more money at the poor. Yea that will help!! I'd like to know how much this country has spent on entiltlement programs over the years. Per all 3 the problem has only gotten worse. No shit!!!! Stop making welfare a career and have them get a FUCKIN JOB!!!
Was also funny to watch the two crackers try to act more black than Obama. I was just waiting for Hillary to claim she sucked MLK's dick so that made her the blackest canidate.
Nice that John Edwards pressed the point that he takes no money from lobbyist. Although most of his campaign is funded by trial lawyers. Not sure what is worst for America, but I'd take a shot and say trail lawyers do more damage than lobbyist.
In two debates I've learned Obama is disorganized and takes advise from others. That's the kind of guy I would want to "lead" our country. Another "poll" president like Clinton.
Is it just me or is Hillary being used to get her husband back in the White House again.
Watching that debate was better than South Park!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mickulz on Jan 22, 2008 16:59:54 GMT -5
Funny that when the 108th congress was in session (2003-2004), nothing got done. You constantly bitch about how the Democrats make everything a welfare state, yet when it was a Republican President and a Republican Congress, nothing got done.
Welfare got worse (The wonderful national prescription plan), Government got bigger (Homeland Security), and the Patriot Act.
Add in the fact there was not a SINGLE budget cut, No federal programs or departments were eliminated.
It just goes to show you that Parties mean nothing now. Both sides are pathetic.
You are being so critical of the Democrats it is hilarious. You think that the republicans do not take money from trial lawyers? Everyone hates them UNTIL they need them.
Out of the the Republican debates, I have learned that the Republicans have no idea who they are. They no longer know if they are right or left. Liberal or Conservative. They are a mess.
|
|
|
|
Post by seanx on Jan 22, 2008 18:32:52 GMT -5
Did anyone watch the debate last night? Glad to see Hillary will give us Universal Healthcare. I thought she tried to ram that down our throats when Bill was in office and failed. Thought it was great to watch "millionares" try to act like they cared about the poor, more than the other guy/woman. All 3 want to throw more money at the poor. Yea that will help!! I'd like to know how much this country has spent on entiltlement programs over the years. Per all 3 the problem has only gotten worse. No shit!!!! Stop making welfare a career and have them get a FUCKIN JOB!!! Was also funny to watch the two crackers try to act more black than Obama. I was just waiting for Hillary to claim she sucked MLK's dick so that made her the blackest canidate. Nice that John Edwards pressed the point that he takes no money from lobbyist. Although most of his campaign is funded by trial lawyers. Not sure what is worst for America, but I'd take a shot and say trail lawyers do more damage than lobbyist. In two debates I've learned Obama is disorganized and takes advise from others. That's the kind of guy I would want to "lead" our country. Another "poll" president like Clinton. Is it just me or is Hillary being used to get her husband back in the White House again. Watching that debate was better than South Park!!!! .............wow.............. at times like this I'm embarrassed to be an American |
|
|
|
Post by seanx on Jan 22, 2008 18:36:56 GMT -5
.........I'm all for lawyers.........I've been awakened to the fact that the legal system would be one of the most powerful non-violent tools used to fight governmental corruption (both sides of the aisle) and hold responsible the individuals guilty of such acts
|
|
|
|
Post by HBGOnline on Jan 22, 2008 19:12:03 GMT -5
You are being so critical of the Democrats it is hilarious. You think that the republicans do not take money from trial lawyers? Everyone hates them UNTIL they need them. Out of the the Republican debates, I have learned that the Republicans have no idea who they are. They no longer know if they are right or left. Liberal or Conservative. They are a mess. I agree 100%!!! NOBODY has grown a set of balls (dem or rep) to do what is needed to turn this country around. Politicians (both parties) do nothing but pander to groups in hopes of getting their votes. I have yet to watch a full Rep. debate, but I'll crack on them too. Here's what I'd like to hear from somebody: Enforce the borders (build the damn wall), if our military is going to "police" a country than charge for the service, make welfare just like unemployement (temporary not permanent), fully utilize our own natural resources for energy needs, no more "pork" adding to bills, enact a flat tax (for everyone), stop forcing unpaid mandates down state's throats, term limits for all of congress( if 8's good for the prez, than it's good for all of them too), campaign finance reform, stop foriegn aid to those countries that don't need it, equal out the trade policies, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Mickulz on Jan 22, 2008 19:20:09 GMT -5
I have officially moved "repeal trade and travel restriction to Cuba" on my top list of things to do when I am President.
I am still not "sold" on the whole "build a wall" plan. Walls have never worked in throughout history.
|
|
|
|
Post by HBGOnline on Jan 22, 2008 19:51:05 GMT -5
I am still not "sold" on the whole "build a wall" plan. Walls have never worked in throughout history. It's not going to be 100% effective, but it will slow to a managable enforcement issue when completed. The money is allocated, a half ass attempt has been made. Problem is where the wall was built to date, it's working. Thus the attempt to stop it all together. Agreed the Cuba boycott has gone on way to long. |
|
|
|
Post by freddyv on Jan 22, 2008 19:54:44 GMT -5
I didn't see much of the debate, but what I did see amounted to: stroke each other, sneak jabs in at each other, talk about how you're the candidate that needs to be elected because you can go up against the big bad republicans, repeat. it's ridiculous that this is the manner in which they energize their fan base.
universal health care is a dumb idea. any time that the government takes over something that should be a free market, they make it worse. also, where are we going to get all of the money needed to fund all of these wonderful programs that they're proposing? I'm sick of the robin hood routine, it's getting old.
I'm not down with the welfare state. I'm not down with policing the globe. I'm not down with the nanny state either. it's not the federal government's job to do any of that stuff. we should take care of each other, but it should be voluntary charity not a pilfering of my paycheck.
I agree that both parties have sucked lately. we need more choices.
mickulz...I looked into the superdelegate thing, and it's pretty shady. basically the democratic party wants to make sure that they control who gets the nomination. I'd be kinda pissed if I were registered democrat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mickulz on Jan 22, 2008 22:09:22 GMT -5
The problem with the Super-delegates is that they have saved the party a few times also. There are a lot of shady things when it comes to primaries on both sides.
|
|
|
|
Post by seanx on Jan 24, 2008 7:22:15 GMT -5
....at least it seems like someone is keeping up with investigating the New Hampshire vote recount (looks like up to 7% errors in the one district on Diebold machines alone): www.bradblog.com/?p=5591side note: is the guy whose site this is, smoking a joint in that photo of himself? ......... I think so (gives him more cred) ....... |
|
