Letters to the Editor
-
Ya right
This thing would have been settled by now with a sane, RATIONAL system - such as - yes, the GOP has, though they didn't invent it.
Yes, because it is perfectly rational that if a candidate wins a state with 5 million voters, by one vote, that all the delegates go to the person with 2,500,001 votes, effectively disenfranchising 2,499,999 voters.
I've been watching you operate for a while droogoy, and you are either completely a Hillary shill, or a right wing troll, or both.
Proportional representation is the most Democratic way to settle things, making it right choice for the Democratic party. Your argument is so transparently ad-hoc and ex-post-facto, I'm surprised you aren't ashamed to publish it.
-
Only a foolish Democrat would take Republican opinions on this seriously and use it to decide the truth.
Of course many people think, because they're watching a Reporter ask the question, the Republican will be honest. Umm, why?
Why in the world are the Carl Roves of the world suddenly going to be honest when asked by a Reporter, when they've spent their entire lives lying to Reporters?
Republicans comments on this issue are meant to mislead and misinform any Democrat trying to make a decision.
Any Republican with an ounce of common sense will want to direct you to voting for the the weaker candidate in their Personal opinion
What's particularly irritating is the media's desire paint asking political opponents tips on how those they oppose can succeed is a good idea.
If that's true, I can see what's coming.
Soon the media will interview Convicts and ask them how to help cut down on prison escapes?
Any day now reporters will start to quiz illegal immigrants for ideas on how to prevent them from coming here in the first place.
I imagine soon some major daily will ring up Obama Bin Laden and ask him tips on how to stop the terrorists before they have a chance to strike.
Asking Republican opinions on what is the best winning strategy for Democrats makes NO MORE SENSE than the above examples.
There is NO all-encompassing, near-universal Republican notion on the "toughest Democratic oponent." Just like Democrats their opinions on that vary depending on who you speak to.
I can't believe any Democrat would think that they could depend on such advice.
Democrats who use "Republicans think my candidate is the tougher opponent" as a reason to vote for their candidate should have "Naive and Silly" tattooed on his/her forehead so those who have some sort of political sophistication can avoid them. ;-)
Other opinions matter. Other opinions should be sought out so ask away, but take Republican opinions with a lot of skepticism, especially in the Media.
I actually pay Attn. to the Republican talking heads, and their advice, after the fact, always turns out to be almost utterly wrong, and/or the most off target
of all the opinions I hear, regardless of the issue affecting Democrats.
It doesn't matter if you support Obama or Hillary, asking Republicans opinions on who is the better Democrat is not going to work any better for you than it would for a football team asking their opponent to suggest the best plays to defeat them. You're gonna get lied to. So why bother.
-
Random bold/italic usage
It doesn't enhance your point at all. It makes you hard to read, and look stupid.
-
Taking a Droogy
On his break from Freak republik, droogy is sharing with us his wisdom. How fortunate we are. Each state, you moron, has a junior and a senior senator. Hillary is the junior senator from NY. I'd explain further, but I'm sure it's beyond your capacity. As for Obama and his "basement office", he was president of the harvard law review, while Rodham took three tries to pass the bar. I doubt you ever pass a bar, assuming you're old enough to get in. In the real world, where you'd need a passport, Hillary is so far behind in pledged delegates there is no even faintly plausible scenario in which she'd pass Obama. Speaking of passing, I feel a droogy coming on. Time to head to the loo with a good book and a fluffy roll of Charmin. love heywood
-
Hello, moron!
tom pahyne blathered
Each state, you moron, has a junior and a senior senator. Hillary is the junior senator from NY. I'd explain further, but I'm sure it's beyond your capacity
Hello, moron, I was NOT referring to "Junior" in the technical sense as you note - which any political newbie knows. I was using the term in the sense of relevant years of actual Senate EXPERIENCE ....measured in YEARS in the SENATE. (E.g. Hillary in her 6th year is senior to Obie in his third. Dig?) In terms of this definition, moron, Obama FAILS compared to Hillary who was running committees while Obie was still doing his "not present" thing in the Illinois STATE senate.
Now, put your foot up your ass and fuck it.
Hillary is the best person for this country, and will be proven so. Being a "law review" editor only shows Obie can write well, like he can blab, doesn't prove diddly or shit.
Let Obie accumulate gravitas and more years in the Senate - at leasdt finishing his term - then he can run in 2016 when the green, callowness will be removed.
-
Hillary behind?
Tom Pain wrote:
Hillary is so far behind in pledged delegates there is no even faintly plausible scenario in which she'd pass Obama
Hello, moron! Ever heard of the superdelegates? All she needs to do is get a plurality of those to take her over the magic number and she wins! Those supers are already headed in her direction and winning PA will seal it, irrpespective of Obie's pledge count. The tipping point is seeing that Hillary can win the big states, and that will be what confers the SUPERDLEGATE advantage for her - all pledged delegates to the contrary.
And don't hand me any BS that the supers have to follow the pledged, um.....no, they do not, maestro.
Now, go back to the loo, take a dump and check your poop. Your bile may be failing. Will do you some good, asshole.