That was just a guess PUSC when I said about your group calling me a l.esbian, after Sprintgirl posted the link to the video about the Oklahoma legislator attack on g.ay people, and after Mike repeatedly called me and Hillary Clinton l.esbians. I was only guessing what you were talking about in private PMs.
You are double faced my dear. That's the dirty game you're playing.

You made it look as if I attacked "ALL" posters on this forum. In fact the truth is your "group" attacked me and I responded.
It's easy to attack when in a group. Would you assume I would attack a group? I would have to be a looney to do that. So don't twist this around PUSC. You are the one who is a troll of this forum with nothing to offer but stir controversy, it's subtle stirring but still trolling. Anyone who knows about trolling will agree with me.
On the other hand, because I responded in rather strong manner, doesn't mean I am the attacker. I simply presented a stronger defense.

One more thing: you think we were not friends for all these months? You didn't manage to become friends with me?
That's a LIE, Houston and Explora can confirm.

As for the occurance of an "outsider" who offers non biased objective view, it's such a typical tactic of the group surrounding the true troll. Textbook.

I hope you feel better now, Iperson. Have a nice day.

quote:

Originally posted by Jasmin:
the last time i checked i found that us presidency/nomination is not decided based upon popular votes nor who has more pledged delegateds. Gore had more popular votes than bush, yet he lost. similarily, having more delegates doesn't automatically nominate the nominee. rather it should be a required number of delegates. party's rule to have/win require delegades to secure the nomination is there for a reason. also, superdeledates are there for a reason. their only job is to vote for the nominee whomever they want to be nominated than thinking anything else to it. if a nominated is awared based upon who has more pledged delegates and who has more popular votes than there wouldn't be a need of securing requried number of delegates and superdelegates...

Jasmin,
I think you missed the point I was making. From a academic Political Science perspective, what is happening within the Democratic Party is fascinating, albeit frustrating as well.

You are correct about the Presidential nomination through the electoral college. However, when neither candidate in the Democratic party does not have the required number of delegates to win the nomination, what will the Democratic party do in order to decide who the nominee is? If you think in Presidential history, think of President Rutherford B. Hayes. Did not win the required number of electoral votes. It went to Congress to decide the matter and after some wrangling, he eventually won the Presidency. Take that same situation and fast forward to the present in the Democratic party. It is a similar situation which could relult in some very damaging consequences to the Democratic party, if the leaders are not careful.

As I said, both candidates make strong arguments why they should be the nominee. However, if Clinton becomes the nominee because of some back room brokerage deals, it has the potential of splitting the Democratic party. Obama has rejected being the VP for Clinton, and rightly so. He is the front runner in the Democratic Party race, not second. Add to Farraro's comments about Obama, and independents might think twice before voting for Mrs Clinton. And in the general election, the independents are the key to winning the White House, not party supporters. That is the point I was making.

quote:

if Clinton becomes the nominee because of some back room brokerage deals, it has the potential of splitting the Democratic party

You call it back room brokerage deals, and I call it Democratic Party RULES.
Every party has the right to choose the rules by which it chooses the nominee for president. Republicans have the right to choose their rules, democrats too.
You exaggerate everything Hudson, as usual. You're a straw man. You belong to the Oz land.

Jasmin, I believe you are making a huge mistake by voting for McCain. If so, you should reregister and switch the parties to republicans.

Party politics aside. Isn't it up to the 'people' to decide who they want? The notion of super delegates was a bad idea. It reinforces the idea that a person's vote doesn't count.

You all know who files helpful posts and those who are just posting for their own fun.

People should keep in mind that democratic primaries are not national elections. The primaries are Democratic Party CONTEST for the nomination, exclusively WITHIN the Democratic Party, accorting to Democratic Party RULES.
If I set up today an IPERSON Party, do you think I have a right to set up the rules by which I choose my friends, or if I decide to nominate someone for president from the IPERSON party, should I take into consideration this board's votes on who should be nominated?
NOPE.
Same goes for Republican Party as they devise their own rules, which are different from Democrats. I imagine the green party also has different rules.

It is a good superdelegate system because Democrats look at the profile of voters, look at who voted for each candidate and then assess their chances in the general elections.
It looks like that more true registered Democrats vote predominantly for Hillary Clinton. While Obama garners more support from independants and republicans.
This is why he is winning all the red states, and Hillary is winning the democratic blue states.
Now if you were the DNC chair, would you listen to who independants want for president or who democrats want for president??

Jasmin, I would argue with you on the merits of your decision, but I won't not to be misconstrued as an attack on all posters on this forum.
But I'd like you to also look at the differences between Obama and McCain on issues, and choose the candidate that is closer to your own view on issues: healthcare, war, environment, immigration, etc.
Experience doesn't overrule all arguments pro and con, issues do.
I vote for issues, not candidates. It doesn't matter what the candidate looks like, if they are black or white, man or woman, etc. What matters are issues at the core of this presidential debate.

I can speak for myself that I do appreciate ProudU's posting of relevant articles, either in this thread or on the world news thread/immigration thread started by other posters. I can also understand Iperson wanting to have a discussion since this is a discussion forum. That's the reason why there are requests to divide the forum into two - one for posting issues/immigration problems and the other one for all the rest.

But in the meantime, I still agree that everybody is free to say and post whatever they like to say and post (within reason). That's the beauty of being in the USA - freedom of speech as one of the fundamental human rights.

I have a question iperson. You said the DNC evaluates the profile of the voter. What are they looking for? If that is true its completely unfair to say one person's vote is worth more than another's. You didn't mention that the voting fell along racial lines state by state. It was also split by gender. Being split is not good for a general election. How are they going to get over that?

quote:

Originally posted by Jasmin:
the fact is Democratic party has now already spilit, believe it or not. Last Saturday the poll came out stating 20% democrates would vote for John Mccain if Obama would be the nominee. Just yesterday CNN took a poll in Mississippi from those who voted for Hillary and asked them if they would support Obama if Obama would win the nomination, almost all, 500 out of 500, said no. Obama campaings/supporters called Hillary as a monster and other day she was said that at 3 am she would be with Bill on the bed than answering calls and also was said that she did not know how to make a judgement call when situations were Bill with Monica, Paula Jones and Jenifer Flowers. There is already so much spilit in the democratic party. A lifelong democrate like myself will choose to be independent or would vote for John Maccain if Obama would be the nominee.

I will agree there are some issues within the Democratic Party, and even a potential split now formulating. Just wanted to discuss the what if scenarios in the upcoming November election and how that will affect voters in general. I appreciate your views and respect them, FYI. Agree to agree to disagree.

quote:

Originally posted by Mrs. B.:
I can speak for myself that I do appreciate ProudU's posting of relevant articles, either in this thread or on the world news thread/immigration thread started by other posters. I can also understand Iperson wanting to have a discussion since this is a discussion forum. That's the reason why there are requests to divide the forum into two - one for posting issues/immigration problems and the other one for all the rest.

But in the meantime, I still agree that everybody is free to say and post whatever they like to say and post (within reason). That's the beauty of being in the USA - freedom of speech as one of the fundamental human rights.

Mrs. B.

I respect your opinion and your choice Jasmin, as everyone else's but I also have the right to oppose it and tell you why.
And I am not here to convince anyone to vote for Hillary or Obama.

Sis, DNC doesn't look at racial or gender devide to make their choice on who is a better candidate for the party. They look at the political devide more so than anything else.

The Democrats will fight until theres a winner, then they will come together and vote for the Dem nominee. Even Bill Kristol thinks so.

Now, can you, yes you, tell me why you hate Hillary Clinton?

I am calling all the b.itches to tell me why. I want to know concrete good reasons. Bashing allowed, but unreasonable claims like just because are not allowed. Start now.

Spitzer Prostitute Details: $80,000 Spent, Mood Music, Multiple Prostitutes, Up To A Decade Of Use And An Ever-Present Security Detail


Did anybody hear what Hillary had to say about fellow democrat aka Elliot Spitzer whackjob.. ? no pun intended.

I bet there is a real story behind his insisting that illegals get drivers license.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=fox+news+pa...+wright&search_type=

This is scary that this person is obama's spiritual advisor

With friends like this... who needs enemies?

This was just in time to overshadow Geraldine ferraro's stupid comment that obama wouldnt be where he is if he were white. (I guess she didnt know that he is also white equally as he is black).

Hmmmm


Perhaps somebody should order a few muzzles for these people.


p. s. Keep those articles coming Proud!! drop them anyway you want and can

quote:

p. s. Keep those articles coming Proud!! drop them anyway you want and can

Lol, 4Now. If I post any more regarding the election, I'll make sure I don't post them here!

Btw, I started a thread dedicated to Spitzer's fall from grace.

Obama Condemns Pastor's RemarksBy NEDRA PICKLER and MATT APUZZO,
AP
Posted: 2008-03-18 11:55:28
PHILADELPHIA (March 18) - Democratic Sen. Barack Obama on Tuesday tried to stem damage from divisive comments delivered by his pastor, while bluntly addressing anger between blacks and whites in the most racially pointed speech yet of his presidential campaign.
Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama confronted racial issues in a speech Tuesday, confronting an uproar over divisive comments made by his pastor and what he called "a racial stalemate [Americans have] been stuck in for years."

Obama confronted America's legacy of racial division head on, tackling black grievance, white resentment and the uproar over his former pastor's incendiary statements. Drawing on his half-black, half-white roots as no other presidential hopeful could, Obama asserted: "T