Letters to the Editor
debaser
Published Letters: 653 Editor's Choice: 11
-
@danb
[Read the article: Would Americans elect a woman president?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]the article was meant more as a think-piece...more like seeing if there was a case for disbanding the Senate.
I tend to agree with you, however I think once they started electing Senators any claims to it being a "chamber of sober-second thoughts" kind of flew out the window.
still, I wonder why House Representatives aren't considered presidential? It's kinda weird.
-
@onenote...erm I mean onecald
[Read the article: The GOP attack plan for Barack Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]ya know, most Republican trolls at least try to mask their real sympathies on here...you should try harder.
good day
-
careful...
[Read the article: Politico: "Clinton has virtually no chance of winning"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]ncawley is apparently as mad as hell and s/he isn't gonna take it anymore!!!
-
@wes
[Read the article: Quote of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I knew there was a reason I kinda liked you...nice work on the Neil Young reference!
you never did reply to my query the other day - you're a big fan of Hunter S Thompson aren't you? How dog-eared is you copy of Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail right about now?
-
religious jokes a go-go
[Read the article: Expel, expelling, expelled!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In honour of the first two Baptist jokes:
Q: Why don't Calvinists have sex standing up?
A: It looks too much like dancing.
(wakka wakka wakka)
-
FL and MI and the delegate count
[Read the article: The Democrats' anti-momentum]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Correct me if I'm wrong, but if they counted both Florida and Michigan wouldn't the nomination threshold go up as well? I was under the impression that 2,025 delegates was based on the fact that neither Florida nor Michigan were going to seat any delegates. If their states counted as "0" in equation, then wouldn't adding their delegate totals just up the threshold?
does anybody know?
-
@wynter
[Read the article: The Democrats' anti-momentum]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"The largest issue that points to this is the 2008 version of the "hanging chad", the Michigan and Florida "do over" failures. These failures were largely attributed to the Obama campaign's instructions to stonewall the process in the legislature. Obama may have spoken on Larry King that he was all "for" a do-over in those states, but his operations on the ground and in the state senates were clearly told to oppose any "do over"."
Do you have any evidence of this? I'm not saying it's not conceivable that he's stonewalled, it's just that I haven't seen anything remotely credible to confirm this...are you just assuming this is the case or is there evidence out there?
-
This Curry fella
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't really follow college basketball so could anyone tell me if this Curry chap was already considered a top prospect for the NBA draft? If not, does his stock rise exponentially? And if it does, will it lead to buyer's remorse? Isn't the history of the NBA littered with busts who perform REALLY WELL at the NCAA tournament but probably weren't considered top tier prospects beforehand?
King, I think this would make an interesting column...just sayin' is all.
p.s. about the 10 yard rule. What REALLY annoys me is how scientifically exact the NFL is with what constitutes a catch (super slow motion replays ad nauseum until one angle shows a whiff of "bobble" and then it's ruled incomplete) and yet they eyeball where a first down is and just mark it with their foot. I've been thinking they either have to take the human element completely out of the equation (GPS for first downs?) or allow for human interpretation with all its faults. (I actually like the element of human error - Think Maradona's "hand of god" would be so legendary if it was overturned by replay? It might not be fair - but it adds to the history of the sport.)
-
Wes
[Read the article: The Democrats' anti-momentum]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]would those four wins overturn the delegate count and the popular vote?
If they don't then I think picking Clinton would be a disaster for the Democrats - quite simply, if they risk alienating the most reliable Dem voting block (African Americans) well, I'd hazard it would be far worse for the future of the Democrats than "losing" the south was.
-
@EricAlaska
[Read the article: The Democrats' anti-momentum]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What are you basing this on? Your gut feeling? Howzabout we wait until Pennsylvania and see how the Wright flap affected the voters there? Remember, people have INCREDIBLY short attention spans...I suspect the Wright flap will be a distant memory come August when the economy is in a full-on recession.
cheers
-
@Paul
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yeah, I know...it still stings for my colonial forebearers (I'm Canadian :).
My point was that while it sucks, it adds some spice to following sports. What fun is there is following a team (national or otherwise) if you weren't able to say, every once in a while, "we wuz robbed"?
cheers
-
@Doc
[Read the article: "Clinton will not be able to win the nomination"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"And he will have won nothing after Wisconsin but Oregon, Montana and maybe American Samoa."
pardon me, but hasn't he already won Vermont, Mississippi, Wyoming, and Texas??
She'll win Pennsyvlania by 10-12 pts, but he'll win North Carolina and possibly Indiana by the same margins...
but keep on spinning me right round baby, right round!
-
@DrFresh
[Read the article: "Clinton will not be able to win the nomination"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That was a FANTASTIC Tennenbaums reference!
cheers!
-
@Ben Sen
[Read the article: The Democrats' anti-momentum]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You just wrote this:
"The Clinton's have been exceptional in their support of the party through the years."
With all due respect, I don't know if this holds. One moment stands out in stark relief for me that negates this (and bear with me those that have heard me prattle on about this before)
Right before the 2006 primaries Clinton threw Kerry under the bus for his asinine "Get (us) sent to Iraq" joke. I distinctly remember seeing her on t.v demanding that he apologise to all the troops. Why would she choose to stoke the flames of that silly war when the Republicans, Hannity, Limbaugh and all the rest were trying their damndest to turn that into a faux wedge issue and thus sneak out another win? It stunk of political opportunism and highlighted her shift to the Right. It turned my stomach (but then I'm Canadian, and Party Loyalty is paramount here - the Lieberman's of Canadian Politics get turned out on their ear very quickly).
I don't necessarily disagree with anything else you said, but that one line didn't wash for me. I fail to see any real Party Loyalty on the part of Clinton...but I could be wrong.
cheers
cheers