The Clinton Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
souvlaki said:
Last week Bill Clinton said seating only half the delegates in Florida and Michigan was a fair compromise. Anyone want to make bets his wife wont accept anything less then them being counted in full, and completely contradict her husband?
Click to expand...

Bill Clinton has always been a little more reasonable.
 
TheMarx said:
Bill Clinton has always been a little more reasonable.
Click to expand...

And what he is saying is completely reasonable. I personally have no issue with the delegates being cut in half. It's not likely to affect the outcome (not that seating them in full probably would either), and they deserve some penalty for breaking the rules, otherwise states will be breaking the rules right and left in 2012 because they will know there will be no consequences. It's just absurd to say, on the one hand, the popular vote is more important than the delegate count, but refuse to include caucus states that followed their rules, and in the same sentence say that states that did break the rules will receive no punishment whatsoever.
 
jmanspice said:
I had Blue Sad Face when I heard her say that the movie makes a case for Florida and Michigan to be seated :csad:
Click to expand...

Kevin Spacey thought it was hilarious she was using that movie as an excuse to seat Michigan and Florida.
 
souvlaki said:
And what he is saying is completely reasonable. I personally have no issue with the delegates being cut in half. It's not likely to affect the outcome (not that seating them in full probably would either), and they deserve some penalty for breaking the rules, otherwise states will be breaking the rules right and left in 2012 because they will know there will be no consequences. It's just absurd to say, on the one hand, the popular vote is more important than the delegate count, but refuse to include caucus states that followed their rules, and in the same sentence say that states that did break the rules will receive no punishment whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Well, there is a very easy way to get around this, not punish Michigan and Florida and not have a bunch of states breaking the rules in 2012.

The party could just admit that they were wrong to begin with.

Shocking concept, I know...a political party admitting fault. However, if the party simply created a national primary day instead of a ridiculous system which makes some states impotent of any power and gives other, much smaller states a completely disproportionate ammount of power this entirely silly situation would've been avoided. Also, if they did away with caucuses, a ridiculously stupid system, another problem would've been avoided.

But y'know, the DNC would rather just close their eyes, get on their knees, and pray this whole situation resolves itself before anyone sees what an idiotic bureaucracy they really are.

Also, Souvalki, do you feel Obama should be given the "uncommitted," delegates?
 
Matt said:
Well, there is a very easy way to get around this, not punish Michigan and Florida and not have a bunch of states breaking the rules in 2012.

The party could just admit that they were wrong to begin with.

Shocking concept, I know...a political party admitting fault. However, if the party simply created a national primary day instead of a ridiculous system which makes some states impotent of any power and gives other, much smaller states a completely disproportionate ammount of power this entirely silly situation would've been avoided. Also, if they did away with caucuses, a ridiculously stupid system, another problem would've been avoided.

But y'know, the DNC would rather just close their eyes, get on their knees, and pray this whole situation resolves itself before anyone sees what an idiotic bureaucracy they really are.

Also, Souvalki, do you feel Obama should be given the "uncommitted," delegates?
Click to expand...

You haven't been reading my posts lately, have you? I personally feel Edwards and Obama should split those delegates 50-50. What it comes down to though is it's perfectly legitimate to seat only half the delegates. How is that wrong? The GOP did that, and I didn't hear any cries of disenfranchisement.
 
And the DNC isn't to blame. They set the rules, Florida and Michigan broke them. What is so hard to understand about that? The only people to blame are the state officials in those states that broke the rules. Don't blame the DNC for Michigan and Florida breaking the rules... rules Hillary Clinton signed off on with full knowledge of what the meant months before the election. If a baseball player breaks the rules and an umpire throws him out of the game do you blame the umpire?
 
I was clearly unfamiliar with your position which is why I asked. What about Richardson and Biden? I'd say the fair way would be to give Clinton the 73 delegates that she won. Then for the 55 uncommitted, give 13.75 to Obama, Richardson, Biden, and Edwards each. If the party really has such a hard on for power that they will cut those numbers in half, fine. But to assume that only Obama and Edwards would've gotten votes is naive.
 
souvlaki said:
And the DNC isn't to blame. They set the rules, Florida and Michigan broke them. What is so hard to understand about that? The only people to blame are the state officials in those states that broke the rules. Don't blame the DNC for Michigan and Florida breaking the rules... rules Hillary Clinton signed off on with full knowledge of what the meant months before the election. If a baseball player breaks the rules and an umpire throws him out of the game do you blame the umpire?
Click to expand...

I blame the DNC for having stupid rules. If in baseball, you are called out for hitting a home run to left field, I would blame the MLB for having such a stupid rule.
 
Matt said:
I blame the DNC for having stupid rules. If in baseball, you are called out for hitting a home run to left field, I would blame the MLB for having such a stupid rule.
Click to expand...

But if the players agreed to those rules before the game started, and one of them after the fact complained because they hit their home run to left field, do you think they have a legitimate claim, or are they a hypocrite? I'd say the latter personally.
 
I agree its too late to change it now, and that the person who is punished by the rule likely would complain for that reason. Doesn't change the fact that it is a stupid rule and needs to be changed.
 
Actually, I have an even better baseball analogy. It's the 7th game of the playoffs, 9th inning, two outs, and Team Obama has 10 runs, Team Clinton has 5. The MLB made a ridiculous rule before the playoffs began that anyone that hits a ball to the left field doesn't count, or is ruled an automatic out. Obviously it's a stupid rule, but both teams agree to it beforehand. Team Clinton hits two homeruns over the left field wall, Team Obama hits a caught fly ball to the left field, and hits a double to left field. In the 9th inning, realizing Team Clinton has no chance of winning because they are so far behind, so they tell the umpires that those homeruns should count, despite the fact that she agreed to those rules before the game began. They also feel that the game should be decided not on runs scored, but who got more people on base throughout the game. However, they don't want to count people that got on base because they were walked to first, or people that advanced bases by stealing. Ontop of that, despite who wins the game, Team Clinton feels that the umpires should in the end give the game to Team Clinton because Team Clinton feels they have a better chance of winning the World Series than Team Obama. That is how I feel about this race.
 
And to be fair, there are tons of rules the MLB have made in the past that I think are ridiculous. But they are still rules.
 
Matt said:
I agree its too late to change it now, and that the person who is punished by the rule likely would complain for that reason. Doesn't change the fact that it is a stupid rule and needs to be changed.
Click to expand...

Then they should've complained before they play the field instead of complaining after the rules didn't rule in their favor.
 
Raiden said:
Then they should've complained before they play the field instead of complaining after the rules didn't rule in their favor.
Click to expand...

It's not even so much a matter of complaining before they played the field, they outright agreed with the rules and changed their mind in the 9th inning.
 
souvlaki said:
It's not even so much a matter of complaining before they played the field, they outright agreed with the rules and changed their mind in the 9th inning.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree. Clinton only began to voice her opposition of the existing rules because she's behind in delegates and thought that if DNC changes them, she'd be ahead of Obama. If she were ahead, she'd be perfectly okay with the rules. So why should people think she has the right to do this?
 
Raiden said:
Yeah, I agree. Clinton only began to voice her opposition of the existing rules because she's behind in delegates and thought that if DNC changes them, she'd be ahead of Obama. If she were ahead, she'd be perfectly okay with the rules. So why should people think she has the right to do this?
Click to expand...

I think she agreed to them because she assumed her nomination would be locked up after Super Tuesday and they'd be seated anyway. She may have disagreed with it at the time, but didn't say anything because it, in her mind, wouldn't matter anyhow. But that's her own fault. If she cared that much about the seating of those delegates, she should have never agreed to the rules. That just speaks once again to the arrogance of her campaign to just assumed she'd have it locked up after Super Tuesday.
 
You know, her argument that she's "the strongest candidate" against McCain doesn't have a hell of a lot of weight behind it. True, she leads in Florida, Ohio, Arkansas, Nevada and Indiana, but she loses Wisconsin and Iowa. Obama wins Wisconsin, Iowa, Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado and Indiana himself. He still wins against McCain, if you were to hold the election today.

It's the difference between 298 electoral votes and 317 electoral votes. It's kind of a silly argument, since you only need 270 electoral votes to win.
 
So, in regards to Bill Clinton's comments about seating only half the delegates... the Clinton campaign today said they will settle for nothing less than all of them being seated or they will take it to the convention and possibly beyond. Y'know, for the longest time I thought maybe I was being too hard on Clinton, and maybe I should have given her the benefit of the doubt. No... she is flat out trying to destroy the Democratic Party. She doesn't give a crap about Michigan and Florida, she doesn't care about the Democratic Party. She cares about herself. I hope this completely ruins not only her Presidential run, but her Senate career as well.
 
souvlaki said:
So, in regards to Bill Clinton's comments about seating only half the delegates... the Clinton campaign today said they will settle for nothing less than all of them being seated or they will take it to the convention and possibly beyond. Y'know, for the longest time I thought maybe I was being too hard on Clinton, and maybe I should have given her the benefit of the doubt. No... she is flat out trying to destroy the Democratic Party. She doesn't give a crap about Michigan and Florida, she doesn't care about the Democratic Party. She cares about herself. I hope this completely ruins not only her Presidential run, but her Senate career as well.
Click to expand...

Yeah, even after party leaders all pleading for the race to be over before the convention, Hillary pretty much dissed all of them because her ego can't handle the truth that she has no chance of winning. So she'd rather take the Dems down in her own Titanic than go down with the ship by herself. :down
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Marx
  • Locked
The Clinton Thread II
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
93K
Thread Manager
T
T
Bust of Hillary Clinton Unveiled at Museum of Sex
Replies
21
Views
1K
Untilteld
Untilteld
sithgoblin
2008 Presidential Election: Gore/Clinton
2 3
Replies
57
Views
5K
Chris B
Chris B
Superman
Bill Clinton smacking down Chris Wallace.
15 16 17
Replies
404
Views
17K
Mr Sparkle
Mr Sparkle
Memphis Slim
Hillary Caught Cheating On Questions
2 3
Replies
51
Views
6K
SuperMonkey
SuperMonkey

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Members online

Total: 4,194 (members: 8, guests: 4,186)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,288
Messages
22,080,010
Members
45,880
Latest member
Heartbeat

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"