Obama and Clinton: two cynical losers

[Annie]

Honestly, I think that while there is animosity between Hillary and Obama, it will not be surpassed by the animosity between republicans and democrats. In fact, I will say that this lengthy struggle is propagated by the fact each candidate far surpasses that of the republican candidates, and both would be excellent choices for president come elections.

Then you are assuming a significant percentage of the voting public are idiots.

 

[Eleutherios]

Then you are assuming a significant percentage of the voting public are idiots.

That's pretty safe to assume my friend

All jests aside, you're right, i was lying when i said that (not quite in these words) "hillary clinton isn't a dushebag, and definately doesn't deserve to be keel-hauled." But, unfortunately the afformentioned idiot voters seem to think that hillary is some sort of competition for Obama...

 

[Dogger]

Then you are assuming a significant percentage of the voting public are idiots.

That goes without saying. Enough idiots voted for Bush to enable him to steal 2 elections. Almost half is "a significant percentage".

 

[Dogger]

Honestly, I think that while there is animosity between Hillary and Obama, it will not be surpassed by the animosity between republicans and democrats. In fact, I will say that this lengthy struggle is propagated by the fact each candidate far surpasses that of the republican candidates, and both would be excellent choices for president come elections.

I would add that one reason the Democratic struggle has gotten so fierce is that the nomination this year is especially valuable. Bush has destroyed the Republican brand (his only positive accomplishment), and Clinton and Obama know this election will be the easiest one for a non-incumbent Democrat since 1932.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I would add that one reason the Democratic struggle has gotten so fierce is that the nomination this year is especially valuable. Bush has destroyed the Republican brand (his only positive accomplishment), and Clinton and Obama know this election will be the easiest one for a non-incumbent Democrat since 1932.

Easy for sure because all 3 nominees are Dimmercritters.

 

[Annie]

That goes without saying. Enough idiots voted for Bush to enable him to steal 2 elections. Almost half is "a significant percentage".

The fact that you call 'stealing' puts you in the idiot camp and not worth responding to.

 

[Dogger]

The fact that you call [it] 'stealing' puts you in the idiot camp and not worth responding to.

Really? Take everything that happened in Florida in 2000, and imagine that Bill Clinton had done it in Arkansas in 1992. Do the same thing for everything that happened in Ohio in 2004.

I would call that stealing. Now convince me that you would not. Idiot.

 

[midcan5]

Dude, what color is YOUR sky? Conservative MSM? GMAFB.

You lefties need to get your shit together -- YOU especially -- on this topic. Your accusation is nothing but partisan blather.

Why on Earth would conservatives NOT prefer Hillary to Obama? The simple fact is Hillary is more conservative than Obama. Duh.

Don't accuse others of pushing propaganda when you're doing nothing repeating the same old lie in each thread this topic is discussed.

Hillary is beatable according to most republican spin masters. And MSM is so conservative today it astounds me that anyone would argue it is not. In an effort at balance, news is diluted to the point of confusion and few complex subjects are hit hard. Obermann is the only left leaning exception in all of news.

 

[Dogger]

Hillary is beatable according to most republican spin masters. And MSM is so conservative today it astounds me that anyone would argue it is not. In an effort at balance, news is diluted to the point of confusion and few complex subjects are hit hard. Obermann is the only left leaning exception in all of news.

I stopped calling the media MSM, because it implies that it is mainstream. Corporate controlled media, or just corporate media, is more accurate.

I understand MSM is nice for shorthand, but the more we use it, the harder it becomes to make people understand how much the media has changed since Nixon.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yup those wily republicans able to get 7 US Supreme Court Justices to agree Florida violated US Federal law. Then in 2004 able to use those secret codes in the machines to steal another election, now in 2006 they just forgot how?

I can hear it now, if McCain does win we will be hearing for another 4 years the sore losers claiming they were cheated again.

As for Clinton, you are aware the man never even got 50 percent of the vote in either election?

 

[Dogger]

. . . .

Then in 2004 able to use those secret codes in the machines to steal another election, now in 2006 they just forgot how?

. . . .

As for Clinton, you are aware the man never even got 50 percent of the vote in either election?

There is evidence of theft in several Congressional Districts in 2006. It did not afftect control of Congress because the blowout was so big. Without the theft, Democratic control would be even bigger.

Clinton got more votes than Bush the Elected or Dole. He got over 50% of those who didn't flush their votes down the toilet, too. What does that have to do with 2000 or 2004 anyway?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There is evidence of theft in several Congressional Districts in 2006. It did not afftect control of Congress because the blowout was so big. Without the theft, Democratic control would be even bigger.

Clinton got more votes than Bush the Elected or Dole. He got over 50% of those who didn't flush their votes down the toilet, too. What does that have to do with 2000 or 2004 anyway?

You are a liar. In 2004 Bush got more votes then Clinton got in either of his wins, which neither had over 49 percent. Bush received over 50 percent. Do they keep making claims that are factually incorrect.

And again if the Republicans cheated you are aware the CONGRESS seats its members? Democrats could have just refused to seat any member they wanted to claim won by cheating. They have done it before. Even ging so far as to create their own board to " investigate" and justify why a Democrat won when a Republican was certified by the State.

 

[Angel Heart]

There is evidence of theft in several Congressional Districts in 2006. It did not afftect control of Congress because the blowout was so big. Without the theft, Democratic control would be even bigger.

Clinton got more votes than Bush the Elected or Dole. He got over 50% of those who didn't flush their votes down the toilet, too. What does that have to do with 2000 or 2004 anyway?

Let's look at your numbers...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004

Bush:
Popular vote 62,040,610
Percentage 50.7%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1996

Clinton96:
Popular vote 47,400,125
Percentage 49.2%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992

Clinton92:
Popular vote 44,909,806
Percentage 43.0%

Sorry but your numbers just don't add up. Try again...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Let's look at your numbers...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1996



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992



Sorry but your numbers just don't add up. Try again...

He means if you add both of Clinton's together of course.

 

[midcan5]

I stopped calling the media MSM, because it implies that it is mainstream. Corporate controlled media, or just corporate media, is more accurate.

I understand MSM is nice for shorthand, but the more we use it, the harder it becomes to make people understand how much the media has changed since Nixon.

I sorta agree but you have to remember, liberals make these distinctions and understand the various shades of gray, for conservatives it has to be said much more simply or you lose them.

Seriously, I think cable news has had a lot to do with it as the constant effort to make news creates an enormous amount of BS on all sides of every fence.

 

[Dogger]

Let's look at your numbers...
**** yada, yada, yada ****

Sorry but your numbers just don't add up. Try again...

Let's look at my original post, first: "Clinton got more votes than Bush the Elected or Dole. He got over 50% of those who didn't flush their votes down the toilet, too." Voting for Perot or a 3d party = flushing your vote.

Using tables in your sources, Clinton and Bush Not the Dummy in 1992 got a total of 84,014,356 votes. Clinton's 44,909,806 votes constituted 53.5% of that total. In 1996, Clinton and Dole got a total of 86,598,880 votes. Clinton's 47,400,125 votes constituted 54.7% of that total.

Margins of 7% and 9.4% among those who chose to participate in the real election is a nice margin of victory.

 

[Dogger]

I sorta agree but you have to remember, liberals make these distinctions and understand the various shades of gray, for conservatives it has to be said much more simply or you lose them.

Actually, for most conservatives, it has to confirm their existing beliefs or you lose them. New information or ideas make their heads explode. That's why they still say "liberal media" and hate the New York Times, even though
the NYT helped Bush start his war in Iraq.

But for people in the middle, how we frame something is really important. And those are the people who decide elections. As long as they believe the media serves any interest other than corporate, they won't understand how McCain is getting a free pass on a wide range of issues.

 

[Gunny]

Really? Take everything that happened in Florida in 2000, and imagine that Bill Clinton had done it in Arkansas in 1992. Do the same thing for everything that happened in Ohio in 2004.

I would call that stealing. Now convince me that you would not. Idiot.

There would be no convincing you. You already believe something completely untrue.

Gore tried to steal Florida through the courts and he lost. Simple as that.

IIRC, Kerry conceded the 2004 election so Ohio is irrelevent.

But if it makes you feel any better, some nimrod Republican here tried the Al Gore tactic and I called him for the dishonest piece of crap he was. His attempt failed too.

 

[jillian]

There would be no convincing you. You already believe something completely untrue.

Gore tried to steal Florida through the courts and he lost. Simple as that.

IIRC, Kerry conceded the 2004 election so Ohio is irrelevent.

But if it makes you feel any better, some nimrod Republican here tried the Al Gore tactic and I called him for the dishonest piece of crap he was. His attempt failed too.

Talk about spinning things backwards.

Caselaw for as long as this country's been around: State Courts make the final decisions on State Election Law.... til... Bush v. Gore.... which the court specifically says doesn't apply to any other case. This is unheard of for the Supreme Court which ONLY takes cases to settle huge questions of law so lower courts can follow them.

And we're forgetting about Cheney's duck-hunting buddy not recusing himself from the Case. Sandra Day O'Connor says her decision in Bush v Gore is one of her huge regrets (easy enough to say after she saddled us with Baby Bush).

*laughing* at you calling Gore dishonest when you voted for Bush/Cheney.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Actually, for most conservatives, it has to confirm their existing beliefs or you lose them. New information or ideas make their heads explode. That's why they still say "liberal media" and hate the New York Times, even though
the NYT helped Bush start his war in Iraq.

But for people in the middle, how we frame something is really important. And those are the people who decide elections. As long as they believe the media serves any interest other than corporate, they won't understand how McCain is getting a free pass on a wide range of issues.

You are not in the middle Dogger, and that is EXACTLY the problem.