yeah, CLINTON QUITS

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

06-04-2008
trish

needsum writes:

Quote:

It's horrible.

It's better than letting some extremist arse run the country after getting only 30% of the electorate. If you're candidate can't find a place in one of the two parties he/she certainly won't win the minds of the majority of the electorate. Why than should he/she lead the nation. A multi-party system is a system in danger of being perpetually run by a single minority.

melissacarter notes:

Quote:

I'll bet she kissed her VP goodbye last night.

I think she blew her chance when she alluded to Bobby Kennedy and asserted "anything can happen".
06-04-2008
MrsKellyPierce

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldensamba

Quote:

Originally Posted by KellyShore

antiasskisser you have serious issues, I am not racist. Still believing the chatroom fun Haze and Johnny were having? Pathetic.

Oh wait this is like that dirty tactic Obama did with Hil's health plan. Sending out flyers lying to them. Is that what you mean Felicia by playing dirty?

He wasn't exactly a saint.

So stop acting like it.

Neither is Hillary who played just as dirty if now worse. Stop acting like she was above the fray.

Omg Goldensamba, I don't like you stop replying to me, I told you this before. You keep to yourself and I will keep to myself.

And lastly my remark was to Felicia when she was making Obama out to be an Angel so I pointed out what he did too.

And lastly the senate does have a lot to do with the state, they are what push BILLS for our states.

Good lord maybe you should watch Legally Blonde 2 lol
06-04-2008
MrsKellyPierce

And Felicia she is counting anyone that voted for her, Hilary has almost 56 % of the popular vote and Obama had 44 %

it's a fact sorry.

You can twist how you like, but the numbers and percantages will not change.

She is the first primary candidate to ever receive so many votes!

Obama himself even congratulate her on that.

So she did win the POPULAR vote
06-04-2008
goldensamba

Quote:

Originally Posted by KellyShore

And Felicia she is counting anyone that voted for her, Hilary has almost 56 % of the popular vote and Obama had 44 %

it's a fact sorry.

You can twist how you like, but the numbers and percantages will not change.

She is the first primary candidate to ever receive so many votes!

Obama himself even congratulate her on that.

So she did win the POPULAR vote

I don't care if you don't like me facts are facts and when you say something stupid you will be called on it. If you want to live in fantasy land about how she won the popular vote without adding the fact that you are including a state where Obama wasn't even on the ballot that is complete dishonesty and lack of integrity. It is because ALL of the candidates agreed to remove themselves from the ballot that he was not there, yet for some reason Hillary didn't follow through with her commitment. To go and use this bogus "popular vote" argument considering the entire picture is laughable. It's a free country (and a free board) so I don't give a rats ass if you like me or not. You have no reason not to so I am a bit confused. Have you ever met me? Talked to me? Spent time around me? I see you also have an irrational hatred of Obama without getting your facts straight. Anyone else see a pattern here?
06-04-2008
needsum

Quote:

Originally Posted by trish

needsum writes:

Quote:

It's horrible.

It's better than letting some extremist arse run the country after getting only 30% of the electorate. If you're candidate can't find a place in one of the two parties he/she certainly won't win the minds of the majority of the electorate. Why than should he/she lead the nation. A multi-party system is a system in danger of being perpetually run by a single minority.

I don't agree. Get rid of the "parties" and let the candidates run on their merits alone. Right now you have people voting for the party more than for the person in that party. Thats not the rule, but look how many arguments there are, democrat vs. republican, in this country? the party politics, many times, outweigh the candidates in the minds of the people voting.

The stigma attached to a candidate being "democrat" or "republican" can really be the only thing a person votes for. How smart is that?
06-04-2008
harlemzfinest

Yeah I saw that speech by Hilary. It was so disrespectful and showed her lack of interest in helping the party. Her priorities are her and herself only.
06-04-2008
needsum

Quote:

Originally Posted by harlemzfinest

Yeah I saw that speech by Hilary. It was so disrespectful and showed her lack of interest in helping the party. Her priorities are her and herself only.

Always have been, always will be. She and her husband are pure power seekers, nothing more.
06-04-2008
goldensamba

Quote:

Originally Posted by needsum

I don't agree. Get rid of the "parties" and let the candidates run on their merits alone. Right now you have people voting for the party more than for the person in that party. Thats not the rule, but look how many arguments there are, democrat vs. republican, in this country? the party politics, many times, outweigh the candidates in the minds of the people voting.

The stigma attached to a candidate being "democrat" or "republican" can really be the only thing a person votes for. How smart is that?

I agree 100%
06-04-2008
trish

needsum writes:

Quote:

Right now you have people voting for the party more than for the person in that party

Of course. You don't really want to vote for a personality do you? A man or woman you can have a beer and a shot with? A party represents a coherent set of views about a broad spectrum of issues...arrived at through a complex dance of local and national discussions and elections. When people vote for a party they're voting for a set of perspectives on a collection of issues. We have conflict in Washington, not because everyone's just sticking up for they're team...but because representatives are attempting to stick by the principles of their party; i.e. the principles of those who elected them. Of course if you didn't vote for that representative you'll feel left out...but that problem is only amplified by a multiple party system because even more people will be left out.
06-04-2008
goldensamba

Quote:

Originally Posted by trish

needsum writes:

Quote:

Right now you have people voting for the party more than for the person in that party

Of course. You don't really want to vote for a personality do you? A man or woman you can have a beer and a shot with? A party represents a coherent set of views about a broad spectrum of issues...arrived at through a complex dance of local and national discussions and elections. When people vote for a party they're voting for a set of perspectives on a collection of issues. We have conflict in Washington, not because everyone just sticking up for they're team...but because representatives are attempting to stick by the principles of their party; i.e. the principles of those who elected them. Of course if you didn't vote for that representative you'll feel left out...but that problem is only amplified by a multiple party system because even more people will be left out.

I'm not sure how more people will be left out in a multiple party system. Multiple parties mean even more viewpoints and more platforms.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page