The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums
-
Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community
In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
If you do not have an account, please register.
REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your InfoTo register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.
Clinton Machine wants to steal the election
- Thread starter chance1
- Start date
^^^ Breath-in, Breath-out, Breath-in, Breath-out.
I don't underestimate the Clinton Political Machine at all. I think it is very likely that Obama will get the popular vote, while Ms Clinton gets the nomination! All I see is a bunch of pissed off voters, oh well!
Democracy at work I guess!
dont you think the voters r going to be split in half no matter who wins ?
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2005
- Posts
- 14,392
- Reaction score
- 20
- Points
- 38
So by "evil force" we could actually blame the Republican Controlled Florida House of Representatives.
Okay, I'll go along with that. Republicans are an evil force
Maybe I just mistrust politicians too much now. It just seems to me as though the only reason the Clinton camp wants to revisit Michigan and Florida is because she's behind.
Okay, I'll go along with that. Republicans are an evil force
Maybe I just mistrust politicians too much now. It just seems to me as though the only reason the Clinton camp wants to revisit Michigan and Florida is because she's behind.
Yeah, on the surface I can understand how it would look like that.
My Non cynical-bitter-hateful-fuck-the-fucking-fuckers side says, "Because the race is so close they want to make sure that every vote is counted."
My bitter cynical-hateful-fuck-the-fucking-fuckers side says, "Whatever we can do to buy time until the Super-Delegates get to weigh in in Denver, CO in AUGUST OF 2008!"
](/images/smilies/bang.gif "Brick wall ](*,)")
either way theres gonna be hell. hillary supporters r gonna feel betrayed and might end up voting for mccain. wich is not a good thing. or they might not even vote at all ? or they might throw there vote away on nadar. so i wish obama supporters will start thinking whats gonna happen if the hillary supporters refuse to stand behind him and support him.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Posts
- 122,824
- Reaction score
- 4,067
- Points
- 113
I could swear I head Obama himself on the news a few nights ago saying he had no problem with Florida or Michigan holding valid primaries -- something like This is a free country, if they want to, go for it.
What's really sinister about the Florida situation is that we have a government telling a private organization how to handle its affairs in a manner that contradicts the organization's rules. Of course if the parties had the dignity and pride to pay for their own primaries, it might not have happened; the Florida state committee could have held their primary any time they wanted.
BTW, Lance, since automatic delegates can change their position at any time, it's better to stick with pledged delegates -- in which Obama has a lead of 138.
But Chance, what "the will of the people" is here is both a problem and irrelevant. Primaries don't involve "the people", they involve the membership of a private organization. That organization can do as it pleases -- so some state parties have votes, some have caucuses, some have both, some have other things. As it turns out, under raw democratic considerations, Hillary is ahead -- but as has been often noted, the Democratic Party isn't much for raw democracy, so there's a difference between that and the pledged delegate count. So if you're going from a political theory viewpoint, you can say Hillary leads; if you're going from a private organization viewpoint, Obama does.
What's really sinister about the Florida situation is that we have a government telling a private organization how to handle its affairs in a manner that contradicts the organization's rules. Of course if the parties had the dignity and pride to pay for their own primaries, it might not have happened; the Florida state committee could have held their primary any time they wanted.
BTW, Lance, since automatic delegates can change their position at any time, it's better to stick with pledged delegates -- in which Obama has a lead of 138.
But Chance, what "the will of the people" is here is both a problem and irrelevant. Primaries don't involve "the people", they involve the membership of a private organization. That organization can do as it pleases -- so some state parties have votes, some have caucuses, some have both, some have other things. As it turns out, under raw democratic considerations, Hillary is ahead -- but as has been often noted, the Democratic Party isn't much for raw democracy, so there's a difference between that and the pledged delegate count. So if you're going from a political theory viewpoint, you can say Hillary leads; if you're going from a private organization viewpoint, Obama does.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Posts
- 122,824
- Reaction score
- 4,067
- Points
- 113
I just noticed we have a discrepancy: Lance shows Hillary ahead in the popular vote, Robertac shows Obama ahead.
..... ?
..... ?
Raincoat Massacre
<3 Kelly Clarkson <3
I can say this much...if Hillary wins Penn its going to be a different story.
Hillary's a witch who'll do anything to win.
Whoever heard of the person running second asking the person running first to take the #2 spot?
This is the hubris I was talking about in regards to the Clintons. The universe has ways of dealing with people like this.
Because Clinton is a lying hypocrite. Had Obama won those states, she'd be fighting (or suing) to prevent a re-vote.
What do you think will happen if Obama loses? He's wins the popular vote, but they hand it to Hillary? Yeah, that won't piss off a shitload of people at all. And what if he refuses to be Hillary's running mate? What if his supporters throw in behind McCain? She's the one who needs to worry about her tactics backfiring in her face.
Looks like Hillary better consider running alongside Obama as VP if they want a Democrat in the White House.
Unless he closes the gap there and goes on to win North Carolina.
Uh oh, regurgitating Repugthink again chance? Doesn't it embarrass you as the fine upstanding Democrat you say you are? You only make more and more clear that in all of your posts, you are a fraud. Come out of your Repug closet Chance and let's discuss it like men. It doesn't matter if you're a Repug, but living in the closet is not healthy for your fragile ego. Besides, closets are dreary places to live.
dont you think the voters r going to be split in half no matter who wins ?
Not if it's a FAIR win.
Would love an explanation(with facts and numbers) of how exactly Hillary wins the nomination.
MystikWizard
JUB Addict
It's called Superdelegates. That is how Hillary will steal the election.
No, dude, it's NOT "exactly" the reason they were established.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/opinion/15mann.html?_r=2&th&emc=th&oref=login&oref=slogin
HTML:
Superdelegates were created by the Hunt Commission, set up in 1982 and led by Gov. James Hunt of North Carolina. The commission was reacting in part to a nominating process in which the weight of influence was with a relatively small cadre of ideological activists whose involvement with the party was essentially limited to the once-every-four-years push to nominate a like-minded presidential candidate. Their influence coincided with election losses in 1972 and 1980, when Jimmy Carter’s re-election effort was crimped by a draining primary challenge from the left.
The Hunt Commission proposed superdelegates (initially set at 14 percent of all delegates, subsequently increased to about 20 percent) to improve the party’s mainstream appeal by moderating the new dominance of these activists and by increasing the contributions of elected and party officials to the Democratic platform and their impact on the selection of a nominee; to provide an element of peer review, weighing the requirements of the office, the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates and the chances that they’ll win; and to create stronger ties between the party and its elected officials to promote a unified campaign and teamwork in government.
I was merely showing you why they were brought about. Your reasoning didn't make sense saying they should be able to vote "against" their constituencies was the "reason" superdelegates were brought about.
Superdelegates were in place way before Mondale, so your last statement makes no sense.
You could say the perfect scenario for why they should overturn the will of the voters could have been in 1984. Had Gary Hart been the presumptive winner and THEN his cheating scandal had come out, that is a perfect example of when the superdelegates should step in. He would have been so damaged by scandal there would have been no way he could win a general election, hence the superdelegates should overturn a nomination when something like this happens. Not when someone just feels they are more entitled and there is NO clear cut evidence they would do any better in the general election. Now if Hillary were leading the delegate count, I could see a more compelling argument for the superdelegates to give it to him based on that he could do better in the general election. But even though I can see that argument, I don't think it should happen in that case either, because it wouldn't be clear cut that he would DEFINITELY do better than her. In both cases, with no compelling definitive reasons, they shouldn't overturn the delegate lead.