• comment on a post Coat Tails over 5 years ago

    ...it brands any Democrat running for Congress as someone who will "bring change," embracing the ethic that any Democrat would by definition be better than any Republican.

    It would brand that way, if the emails labelled the candidates as Democrats. I don't see how the Democratic brand itself is helped by the way the email currently reads. I understand the effort to appear bipartisan in order to bring over some voters who don't like strong partisanship, but as someone who wants the next election and the next election after that to go our way, I would like to see clear and unequivocal branding of the Democratic candidate as better than the Republican.

  • The statement was that more voters voted for Hillary. They did. It is cherry picking to overlook some of the voters because their votes falsify your claim. The fact is that you want to ignore Michigan, simply because Obama took his own name off the ballot (that doesn't seem Soviet at all, but I've gotten used to you ignoring the truth in order to spew propaganda). Obama made a choice. That choice resulted in his getting less votes than Hillary. Live with it.

  • When ottovbvs wrote that Clinton actually got more votes, you wrote "Nope." The link clearly shows that when all states and territories are included Clinton did indeed have more votes.

    Popular Vote Count
    State Date Obama Clinton Spread
    Popular Vote (w/MI) 17,535,458 47.4% 17,822,145 48.1% Clinton +286,687    +0.8%
    Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 17,869,542 47.4% 18,046,007    47.9% Clinton +176,465 +0.5%

    mikeinsf, you really should stop. You're embarrassing yourself. The only good side to this is that were probably the only two people still ever looking at this thread.

  • That's a good point. Perhaps I should have just let your false statement of the facts go unchallenged, and let you feel better about yourself. Lord knows there have been a lot of things said in the primary that simply weren't true. But honestly, is because you simply find the truth 'tiring' enough of a reason to ignore it? That's what Republicans do. I want the Democratic Party to be better than them in that respect (as well as all the issues). I'm sorry that you don't think truth is an important enough principle to always stick with it.

  • Apparently, Mike, you don't know. Go to the link and you will see as I said, that all states and territories were included in the vote count.

    Democracy doesn't always give you clean results, but it does give you data. Ignoring the data is what Republicans do. You should be better than them. Can you be?

  • Well, she did, but It's okay that you don't remember. They keep records on these kinds of things. When all states and territories vote totals are included, Hillary had over 170,000 more votes in the Democratic primary.

  • Stunning is in the eye of the beholder, and the expectations game is played by everyone. From the outrageous anti-Obama newspaper known as The Hill:

    "One hundred million dollars this June -- it's definitely within reach," said Wade Randlett, who has raised more than $200,000 for Obama.

  • on a comment on Bush Is A 4 Letter Word over 6 years ago

    I really want to see two people standing near each other in line to get into one of these events, one with a "McCain = Bush" sign and one with a "McCain = Reagan" (or something saying essentially the same). If the Secret Service* tells the local police to eject one and not the other, you've got a clear case of politics being played.

    Unfortunately, I don't live where he's likely to be holding an event anytime soon. And I just got back from my vacation, or I'd consider a road trip.

    *I don't believe representatives of the Secret Service told that guy in the video to have her removed, but it will open a can worms if members of the McCain campaign are shown to be lying about them.

  • comment on a post McCain: Social Security Is A "Disgrace" over 6 years ago

    This could ruin him.

    I predict it will be about as ruinous for McCain as the following pre-election (2000) statement by George W. Bush was for him:

    Because they want the federal government controlling the Social Security like it's some kind of federal program.

    Republicans don't have to understand domestic programs. The press will shield them.

    The only advantage that I see to be made from this is using it in the context of McCain privatizing Social Security. There it can be part of a theme, and is less likely to be seen as just a slip-up or a misspeaking. If it's treated as him not knowing how Social Security works, the press will protect him as they did Bush.

  • on a comment on Post PR delegate update over 6 years ago

    I called you out because you lied about what you did. I only ask for honesty and fair play. That has nothing to do with Obama. Feel free to make up more things, in this case about how I feel, if it makes you feel better.

  • on a comment on Post PR delegate update over 6 years ago

    You "might have joked about it"? That's an interesting hedge. Obviously, you know you commented about it, so let's look and see if there was anything joking about it.

    Here is one of your comments.

    Don't try to sweep this under.  This was plain as daylight.  Good grief, I'm still in shock that this would come out of her mouth.

    Translation:  "I'm staying in this thing just in case someone decides to take out the black guy."

    Maybe she's thinking that after all that cheap beer she drank and all that bowling she did with those commoners one of them might like her enough to move her from second place to first.

    Ugh.  I can't bring myself to believe that's what she meant but girlfriend had better come out with an explanation for this shit, and fast.

    That is not a joke. And I'm not the only one who thinks that. Metrobot added to your incitement, "she might as well order the hit herself. would be in character at the rate she's going." Your are certainly free to joke about assassination if that is your wont, but that isn't what you were doing, and we both know it.

    Here is another one.

    You're joking, right?  Because last time I checked it was the candidate you're supporting subtly hinting that she's hanging in there in case her opponent gets taken out.

    Us?  We're chilling, realizing we've been wrong to try to push her out.  Girlfriend is tryin to go down in a big old flaming ball of crazy.

    You claim it is the other person who is joking,  you are not.

    As for misogyny, that you only mention the sweetie comment is telling, but let's address that first. Do you think Barack Obama calls "all kinds of people" sweetie all the time? If so, why did he have to apologize for it? Do you often apologize for things that you do that aren't wrong? I'm not gay; it isn't alright for me to go around calling gay men I don't know, faggot. Yet some gay men call each other faggot. I'm not African American; it isn't alright for me to go around using the N-word when referring to black men. Yet some African Americans do. There are social norms we all know and understand, that make it okay for one person to do something when it is wrong for another to do the same thing. Barack Obama was wrong to do it, and he knew it (or worse, someone on his staff had to tell him).


    There's no need to scream. Although I've been told that women, periodically, when they are feeling down launch attacks, I certainly didn't mean for your claws to come out. Good to know though, that isn't being misogynistic or anything.

  • on a comment on Post PR delegate update over 6 years ago

    Not by me. But that's because I follow the ratings guidelines.

    But allow me a question as to what you consider inflammatory. Was it the word arrogant? misogynist? or vapid? And is any of those things truly more inflammatory than insinuating that Hillary wanted one of her supporters to murder Obama? That is something you, yourself did about a week ago.

  • on a comment on Post PR delegate update over 6 years ago

    I'm brining it off of hide, since the guidelines for hiding are "us[ing] inflammatory language against candidates." If personal attacks on politicians weren't allowed about 10% of posts would have to be hidden.

  • on a comment on Hillary Clinton conference call over 6 years ago

    Except that she doesn't say she's entitled to it. That's your spin. She's making her case to the superdelegates. You claim that she is not allowed to make the case, because Obama wasn't on the ballot. That claim is as you pointed out, silly. However, you want to have it both ways, backtracking to then claim again that even though your argument is silly, she still shouldn't be allowed to count the votes of the people that voted for her, because the people who may have voted for Obama were kept from voting for him, by him.

    If Hillary Clinton pulled her name off the North Carolina ballot, you are arguing, that Obama shouldn't be allowed to count the votes there toward his popular vote total. If the Clinton campaign had done that, and then made that (your) ridiculous claim, they would have been laughed at, and rightfully so. It doesn't make it any better that it was Obama in Michigan. That's nothing but a double standard.

  • on a comment on Hillary Clinton conference call over 6 years ago

    The argument is about comparing popular vote totals for Obama and Clinton.

    Oh! I see. So you were being disingenuous when you stated in your initial comment that This argument is premised on fairness to voters, not fairness to candidates.  

    Now you admit this is to gauge voter preference among the available candidates, not to gauge voter preference on every conceivable candidate in the known universe. All right then. As we all know Obama was not on the Michigan ballot and so was not available for them to vote for, so by your own logic the uncommitted votes cannot be considered for him.

    Or are you going to change your argument, yet again?


Advertise Blogads