Who will be the next President of the United States?

[Von Tonner]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Hillary will do her best to change or twist the rules in her favor. She and Bill are old pros at that.

And AVG, what do you think the outcome will be? I see that Ickes (spelling?) now wants none of the Michigan 55 delegates that were uncomitted given to Obama. So much for Hillary's argument that ALL votes must count. Also, if one looks at the make up of the committee if I recall, she has more supporters on it than Obama - but those who who will not say who they support outnumber her lead in that. So here is hoping. Personally, my hope is ALL the delegates will be seated but on a 50/50 basis.

[Tchocky]

If you seat the delegates in any way that changes the layout of the race, then there's no incentive for any state to follow the rules ever again.

This is why 50/50 works wonderfully. And also why Clinton won't allow 50/50.

[AVGWarhawk]

I do not know what the outcome will be. More then likely it will another hanging chad ordeal. No matter how you cut it, Obama will be the standing there in the lead when the smoke and mirrors are taken down. I think it is clearly obvious the American voting public have said all they need to say. Time to end it now with Hillary.

[Von Tonner]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

If you seat the delegates in any way that changes the layout of the race, then there's no incentive for any state to follow the rules ever again.

This is why 50/50 works wonderfully. And also why Clinton won't allow 50/50.

Agree with you Tchocky, hell I wish I was there and had a ring side seat.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Von Tonner

Agree with you Tchocky, hell I wish I was there and had a ring side seat.

I'm betting it will be televised. This is history in the making. As Tchocky said, the rules will never be followed again. As I stated, Hillary is attempting to bend them....as both she and Bill have done in the past.

[NEON DEON]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

I'm betting it will be televised. This is history in the making. As Tchocky said, the rules will never be followed again. As I stated, Hillary is attempting to bend them....as both she and Bill have done in the past.

Ummmm there is no rule that says you move your primary you lose all your delagates.

You want to stop states from moving the primarys then make it random and stop with this Iowa and New Hampshire come first bs.

You want to hit someone over the head for not following the rules then do it. Fire them. That will get you what you want. They wont break the rules again will they?

NO RULES ARE BEING CHANGED ONLY THE PENALTY.

BOO HOO Hillary is going to steal the election.

What a load of BS.

I cant wait for the Obama camps explanation of why he is the nominee of the DEMOCRATIC party without winning the popular vote.

As for 50/50, thats a joke. Clinton wont accept that. There is no reason to. She won in both states.

[NEON DEON]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

Very elegant from her :
http://www.nypost.com/seven/05232008..._wa_112232.htm
Can you really get any lower than that ?

So you are offended but RFK jr. The son of RFK is not.

Ok.

[NEON DEON]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

Personnally I'm far from offended, I read this as "ok I lost the regular race but I keep running in case Obama gets shot before the end line".

If thats what you got out of Clinton's words, then stick to French.

[Von Tonner]

Originally Posted by NEON DEON

So you are offended but RFK jr. The son of RFK is not.

Ok.

There you go with your logic again Neon. If RFK jr is not offended then neither should anyone else be.:hmm:

Wonder why Hillary found it necessary to apologise then - could it be that many many, even her own supporters, of Americans found those remarks offensive too?

I posted in these forums back in March when she first made reference to JFK that it was a reckless and sinister remark.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...29&postcount=9

I was surprised that at that time the MSM did not call her on it. Now that she says it again they have questioned her. And what does this habitual liar say in defence of her remark? She comes out with "well the Kennedys have been on my mind" in reference to Ted. Oh, I see. And when you first came out with this remark in March - what was on your mind then?

[NEON DEON]

Originally Posted by Von Tonner

There you go with your logic again Neon. If RFK jr is not offended then neither should anyone else be.:hmm:

I understand that you are offended VT. You have taken the words and processed them into some sinister plot against Obama. I would be too if I thought that way.

But I dont, and neither does RFK jr.

[Von Tonner]

Originally Posted by NEON DEON

I understand that you are offended VT. You have taken the words and processed them into some sinister plot against Obama. I would be too if I thought that way.

But I dont, and neither does RFK jr.

If I were to open my morning newspaper and the front page headlined: Clinton is the Democratic Nominee. I do not need to read the story to know that only one of two things could have happened.


Scenario One: superdelagates have come out overwhelmingly in her favour by endorsing her – giving her the required target.
Scenario Two: Obama has been assassinated. I can’t think of a likely third scenario without moving into fantasy land. Personally, I think scenario one already moves into fantasy land – but that is my opinion. Scenario two, unfortunately, is not, hence the high and early security attachment to Obama.


Now, when Hillary was specifically asked why she was continuing on in the race her reasoning for not dropping out was this:


“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? “


If she just wanted to give an example of other campaign races that dragged on to illustrate scenario one she could have just stopped there with her husband as an example of her reasoning - or to bolster this argument, referenced it with other campaign examples such as Kerry, Carter or Mondale.


But no, here is the Freudian slip, she continues with her reasoning of why she is continuing by referencing Bobby Kennedy’s campaign as another example.

“We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”


This further example she gives for staying on in the race covers scenario number two.
Now, you could argue that there is nothing sinister or offensive in her reply by simply accepting the explanation she gives for bringing up Bobby’s campaign in that the Kennedy’s have been on her mind of late. But you would then have to ignore the fact that she said the same thing in March in a “Time” interview. And, more importantly, you would have to erase from memory the ‘Bosnia’ story that conclusively proved this woman cannot be taken at her word.


For me, I’ll put my faith in reason over her word any day of the week.

[Fish]

McCain versus McCain.

[NEON DEON]

Originally Posted by Von Tonner

Scenario One: superdelagates have come out overwhelmingly in her favour by endorsing her – giving her the required target.
Scenario Two: Obama has been assassinated. I can’t think of a likely third scenario without moving into fantasy land.

Sure you can come up with a third scenario without moving into fantasy land but your circular reasoning has prevented you from doing so by turning your fantasy land opinion into fact there fore discounting every other scenario

Originally Posted by Von Tonner

But no, here is the Freudian slip, she continues with her reasoning of why she is continuing by referencing Bobby Kennedy’s campaign as another example


“We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”

And there is that circular reasoning again. You have determined that the phrase is a fruedian slip.

This is a freudian slip:

"We all remember Barry Kennedy was assassinated in June in California"

Then you go further by saying she used it in the past. Oh come on. The same freudian slip twice about the same subject?

Originally Posted by Von Tonner

And, more importantly, you would have to erase from memory the ‘Bosnia’ story that conclusively proved this woman cannot be taken at her word.

So based on Clintons 12 year old recall of a story that happened in Bosnia means she cant be taken at her word?

If Obama wins the nomination, and Clinton goes independent or does not support the democratic party then I will not take her at her word.

On the other hand, if Clinton does win the nomination then the same has to be said for Obama.

Originally Posted by Von Tonner

For me, I’ll put my faith in reason over her word any day of the week.

Faith and circular reasoning. Good luck with that.

[Tchocky]

[Von Tonner]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Above clip is but one of many examples of how utterly brainless it was for Hillary to throw out that line. Here is another example of the discourse it has created. Obama speaks at Weseleyan commencement to a crowd of 25,000 and this is how the Los Angeles Times starts it report:

MIDDLETOWN, CONN. -- Snipers crouched on roofs and Secret Service agents patrolled the field as Wesleyan University's class of 2008 participated Sunday in a commencement ceremony few attendees are likely to forget.

I think it was the New York Post that headlined: Hillary said WHAT!?

I'm sure Obama's secret service agents are just loving her for it.