Defeatocrats Imploding

[WilliamK]

Well, I think I've proven it now.

It was "Patriot" who actually made that prediction. I believe 2dim just unwittingly admitted that he and "Patriot" are the same person.

Sucker.

2Smart also made that prediction.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=66528

[Guest 2smart4u]

Well, I think I've proven it now.

It was "Patriot" who actually made that prediction. I believe 2dim just unwittingly admitted that he and "Patriot" are the same person.

Sucker.

Yes, I thought Giuliani would get the nomination, me and about 3 million other people. I'm not

Patriot although I am patriotic. And since I seem to fascinate you so much, I'll be Patriot just for you.

[Bryan]

Yes, I thought Giuliani would get the nomination, me and about 3 million other people. I'm not

Patriot although I am patriotic. And since I seem to fascinate you so much, I'll be Patriot just for you.

Got room for one more? I thought Giuliani would win, too. Let's all be Patriot.

[Guest Patriot]

The Defeatocrats have allowed the "Protect America Bill" to expire. Petty political differences are

more important to these Loonies than intercepting terrorist communications. Their paranoia over

the prospect of the NIA accidentally hearing Aunt Millie discussing a recipe with a neighbor is

beyond loony, more like insanity.

[Guest Guest]

Yes, I thought Giuliani would get the nomination, me and about 3 million other people.

And yet I magically read your mind, with a 1% chance of being correct by your 3 million number, without you saying anything about it here? No, I don't think so, lol. You're caught, fool.

[Guest a proud american]

Yes, I thought Giuliani would get the nomination, me and about 3 million other people. I'm not

Patriot although I am patriotic. And since I seem to fascinate you so much, I'll be Patriot just for you.

Right now Obama has about a 200-300 delegate lead over Hillary. He is ahead in Wisconsin and is closing the gap in Texas, but it may be too late for him. Ohio could trend his way but again, she is ahead in the polls. Since I won't be voting for Mc Cain I am curious as to why all the right wingers are against him. I mean evel Coultergeist would vote for Hillary.

Since you are certainly not a Democrat, why are they not rallying around Mc Cain? I'm not asking this to be smart, I just don't understand.

[Bryan]

Right now Obama has about a 200-300 delegate lead over Hillary.

According to RealClearPolitics, Obama has about a 150 delegate lead in terms of pledged delegates.

The overall delegate count is closer, with Obama leading 1302-1235.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

He is ahead in Wisconsin and is closing the gap in Texas, but it may be too late for him.

He's from Wisconsin, isn't he?

The polling tight in Wisconsin, and Wisconsin divides its delegates (it's not winner-take-all).

http://www.pollster.com/08-WI-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

Ohio could trend his way but again, she is ahead in the polls. Since I won't be voting for Mc Cain I am curious as to why all the right wingers are against him. I mean evel Coultergeist would vote for Hillary.

Obama's voting record puts him to the left of Sen. Clinton. It's not really that hard to figure out, is it? Plus Obama (incredibly) has even less executive experience than Clinton. The most qualified guy in the Democratic primaries (Gov. Richardson) drew yawns from Democratic voters. Obama is much more likable than Sen. Clinton, but other than the incredibly underqualified John Edwards he probably has less gravitas than anybody else who ran on the Democratic side.

Since you are certainly not a Democrat, why are they not rallying around Mc Cain? I'm not asking this to be smart, I just don't understand.

McCain has stabbed his party in the back too often to warrant great enthusiasm from the Republican base. But he'll compete effectively with Obama for the votes of thoughtful independents (those for whom empty "change" rhetoric isn't enough). McCain polls reasonably well against Obama but it will come down to turnout in the end if those two win the nominations. Right now, the turnout advantage should be projected to favor Obama by a good margin.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20..._obama-225.html

[Guest 2smart4u]

Got room for one more? I thought Giuliani would win, too. Let's all be Patriot.

Sure, all Patriots are welcome.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Right now Obama has about a 200-300 delegate lead over Hillary. He is ahead in Wisconsin and is closing the gap in Texas, but it may be too late for him. Ohio could trend his way but again, she is ahead in the polls. Since I won't be voting for McCain I am curious as to why all the right wingers are against him. I mean evel Coultergeist would vote for Hillary.

Since you are certainly not a Democrat, why are they not rallying around McCain? I'm not asking this to be smart, I just don't understand.

His position on amnesty for illegals went against the feelings of most conservatives, also his vote

against the Bush tax cut didn't win him any favors among the R's.

BTW, Coultergeist? You don't have a clue about Ann Coulter. If she ran for president she'd have

my vote.

[Guest Radagast]

Sure, all Patriots are welcome.

I also thought Guiliani would win the Republican nod. Of course, my prediction track record hasn't been stellar in either primary race. Around this time last year, McCain was out of money and counted out by just about everyone. It seemed to me that he put all his eggs in New Hampshire and turned the tide. It kind of begs the question as to why Guiliani did not make a full court press in NH also. By the time Florida came along, he was all but out of it. I suppose if Romney had beat McCain in NH the Florida stratagy might have worked. Having been a political junky all my life, I must say that I found the Republican primary battles far more interesting than the Dems.

[Guest Hudson Observer]

And no one is censoring, either, just calling for a higher level of dialogue. Doesn't mean you have to be Buckley-on-paper. I just don't find anything witty in "my guy will beat up your guy."

Re-read the posts. None of Radagast's or How Daring of You's postings has the crassness of your characterization. (If you disagree, then point to which one you mean.) On the contrary, this has been a good back and forth with reasons provided for forecasts that often went awry, although I'd have to say that Radagast has a much longer record of misforecasting. The exchanges were as good as most on the talking head TV political shows. In a sense, these two posters are even better than the TV pundits since Radagast and How Daring of You have both been honest when they've fallen short.

[Guest How Daring of You]

Right now Obama has about a 200-300 delegate lead over Hillary. He is ahead in Wisconsin and is closing the gap in Texas, but it may be too late for him. Ohio could trend his way but again, she is ahead in the polls. Since I won't be voting for Mc Cain I am curious as to why all the right wingers are against him. I mean evel Coultergeist would vote for Hillary.

Since you are certainly not a Democrat, why are they not rallying around Mc Cain? I'm not asking this to be smart, I just don't understand.

CNN has Clinton at 1213 delegates and Obama at 1262 as of February 17, 2008. It's not over for either one of them.

Obama's poll lead in Wisonsin of 4 points is within the margin of error. Obama has a whole lot of work to do if he wants to cut into the Clinton lead in Ohio and Texas.

Even if either Clinton or Obama wins each of the remaining scheduled contests, it will not be mathematically possible for either candidate to win a majority of delegates prior to the Democratic Convention. Unless something is done about the Florida and Michican delegations, the outcome will be decided by superdelegates. I think they must resolve the Florida and Michigan dilemma.

Why does the right wing dislike McCain? Let me count the ways: McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts; he sponsored campaign finance reform; he joined the so-called gang of 14, consisting of Dems and Reps, who decided which of Bush's judicial nominees would get hearings; he doesn't support Alaska oil drilling; he supported comprehensive immigration reform which many on the right wing have characterized as amnesty for undocumented immigrants.

[Guest Guest]

His position on amnesty for illegals went against the feelings of most conservatives, also his vote

against the Bush tax cut didn't win him any favors among the R's.

BTW, Coultergeist? You don't have a clue about Ann Coulter. If she ran for president she'd have

my vote.

It's no surprise that you would vote for such a vile **** as Ann Coulter.

[Guest Guest]

His position on amnesty for illegals went against the feelings of most conservatives, also his vote

against the Bush tax cut didn't win him any favors among the R's.

BTW, Coultergeist? You don't have a clue about Ann Coulter. If she ran for president she'd have

my vote.

LOL, I wish she was nominated. Few could make a Democratic win easier.

http://slannder.homestead.com/chapter2redacted.html

[Guest *Autonomous*]

The Defeatocrats have allowed the "Protect America Bill" to expire. Petty political differences are

more important to these Loonies than intercepting terrorist communications. Their paranoia over

the prospect of the NIA accidentally hearing Aunt Millie discussing a recipe with a neighbor is

beyond loony, more like insanity.

Of course, FISA is syill in effect. But reality doesn't exactly bother you, does it?

[Guest *Autonomous*]

Goes to show, someone as smart as me can misjudge the intelligence of the voters.

So the Republicans are stupid for not choosing Ghouliani?

[WilliamK]

And yet I magically read your mind, with a 1% chance of being correct by your 3 million number, without you saying anything about it here? No, I don't think so, lol. You're caught, fool.

You're making yourself look like an idiot. 2Smart DID post that opinion. You've caught no one.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=66263

These accusations of sock puppetry are getting ridiculous. There MAY be some cases of it, and I certainly have some suspicions, but flinging all these accusations around without any ability to back them up accomplishes nothing other than adding more foolishness on top of what already exists.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

You're making yourself look like an idiot. 2Smart DID post that opinion. You've caught no one.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=66263

These accusations of sock puppetry are getting ridiculous. There MAY be some cases of it, and I certainly have some suspicions, but flinging all these accusations around without any ability to back them up accomplishes nothing other than adding more foolishness on top of what already exists.

It doesn't really matter. Patriot and 2Dim's posts are functionally identical. It doesn't matter whether or not they are the same person or not-their posts are interchangeable, so I treat addressing either of them more like addressing a particular small-minded viewpoint.

[Guest Radagast]

CNN has Clinton at 1213 delegates and Obama at 1262 as of February 17, 2008. It's not over for either one of them.

Obama's poll lead in Wisonsin of 4 points is within the margin of error. Obama has a whole lot of work to do if he wants to cut into the Clinton lead in Ohio and Texas.

Even if either Clinton or Obama wins each of the remaining scheduled contests, it will not be mathematically possible for either candidate to win a majority of delegates prior to the Democratic Convention. Unless something is done about the Florida and Michican delegations, the outcome will be decided by superdelegates. I think they must resolve the Florida and Michigan dilemma.

Why does the right wing dislike McCain? Let me count the ways: McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts; he sponsored campaign finance reform; he joined the so-called gang of 14, consisting of Dems and Reps, who decided which of Bush's judicial nominees would get hearings; he doesn't support Alaska oil drilling; he supported comprehensive immigration reform which many on the right wing have characterized as amnesty for undocumented immigrants.

Ok ... in order to boost by lagging predictions I will predict that Obama will win Wisconsin by more than 4%.

However, Clinton will win both Texas and Ohio. The question is how much will Obama cut into her lead in the next two weeks? If I'm wrong and Obama wins either State, than it's over but I don't think that will happen. Clinton has spent too much time, money and effort in Texas and Ohio.

As far as Michican and Florida ... they knew the rules ... they went against the rules ... Clinton at least 'bent' the rules in courting their vote while Obama, Edwards and Richardson abided by the rules. I honestly don't know how you can allow their delegations to vote at all. At this point the waters are poisoned since, of course, Clinton would be their choice simply because she courted them. Unless Obama has it wrapped up by June, I'm sure there will be a floor fight over this at the convention.

Over the decades that I have been involved in politics, the primary elections have become more and more polorized. Conservatives dominate the Republican Primary while Liberals dominate the Democratic Primary. In the General Election, the moderate factions of each party and the Independents have a larger say. McCain and either Clinton or Obama will begin to drift back to the middle after they have their nominations. I guess all I'm saying is that it will be a whole different world in September than it is now so hold onto your hat. Old Rad ain't even thinkin about predicting that one.

[Guest Guest]

You don't have a clue about Ann Coulter. If she ran for president she'd have

my vote.

No doubt.

[Guest Guest]

The Defeatocrats have allowed the "Protect America Bill" to expire. Petty political differences are

more important to these Loonies than intercepting terrorist communications. Their paranoia over

the prospect of the NIA accidentally hearing Aunt Millie discussing a recipe with a neighbor is

beyond loony, more like insanity.

These are not petty political differences. The Bush administration is the most criminal administration in our history - worse than Watergate, to use the book title of Nixon's former White House counsel John Dean, a Republican to this day. So I have some questions.

(1) Why can't the government get a warrant for wiretapping?

(2) Why should the telecoms have retroactive immunity for violating the law?

(3) Why shouldn't Americans be entitled to some privacy?

(4) Why should the government have access to all our phone conversations, indiscriminately and without question?

(5) The government can't possibly sort through all that information, but what it can do is misuse its power to persecute innocent people. With all the history of governmental abuses of power, why can't you see that?

(6) How can you call yourself conservative if you don't see it?

(7) Libertarians in your own party get it. Why don't you?

(8) Bush said he was going to cancel his trip to Africa unless he got what he wanted. If the government has lost the power to intercept terrorist communications (which it has not), then why did Bush jet off to Africa instead of staying in the White House to protect us as best he could?

(9) Why is Bush lying about losing the power to intercept terrorist communications, when everyone knows that the provisions of the old bill don't expire for another year?

(10) Telecom immunity for past acts has nothing to do with protecting us from terrorists now. If this was actually about terrorism, then why did Bush hold the bill hostage to the provision on telecom immunity?

(11) If the telecoms acted legally, they have nothing to fear. If they acted illegally, why shouldn't they be held accountable?

(12) Is it possible that a power-mad president and vice president have broken the law, and do not wish to have that fact uncovered?

(13) If they have broken the law, why shouldn't they go to prison?

You're not going to answer any of this. You're going to put up some stupid smiley-face or make your usual inane pet slogans. No harm. Reasonable people will think about it.

[Bryan]

These are not petty political differences. The Bush administration is the most criminal administration in our history - worse than Watergate, to use the book title of Nixon's former White House counsel John Dean, a Republican to this day. So I have some questions.

(1) Why can't the government get a warrant for wiretapping?

(2) Why should the telecoms have retroactive immunity for violating the law?

(3) Why shouldn't Americans be entitled to some privacy?

(4) Why should the government have access to all our phone conversations, indiscriminately and without question?

(5) The government can't possibly sort through all that information, but what it can do is misuse its power to persecute innocent people. With all the history of governmental abuses of power, why can't you see that?

(6) How can you call yourself conservative if you don't see it?

(7) Libertarians in your own party get it. Why don't you?

(8) Bush said he was going to cancel his trip to Africa unless he got what he wanted. If the government has lost the power to intercept terrorist communications (which it has not), then why did Bush jet off to Africa instead of staying in the White House to protect us as best he could?

(9) Why is Bush lying about losing the power to intercept terrorist communications, when everyone knows that the provisions of the old bill don't expire for another year?

(10) Telecom immunity for past acts has nothing to do with protecting us from terrorists now. If this was actually about terrorism, then why did Bush hold the bill hostage to the provision on telecom immunity?

(11) If the telecoms acted legally, they have nothing to fear. If they acted illegally, why shouldn't they be held accountable?

(12) Is it possible that a power-mad president and vice president have broken the law, and do not wish to have that fact uncovered?

(13) If they have broken the law, why shouldn't they go to prison?

1) They can. The question is why they should get a warrant in order to listen in on a conversation between two foreigners whose conversation just happens to pass through an American switchboard.

2) The telecoms should have immunity because their cooperation with the program is voluntary. If they stand to lose millions of dollars because of lawsuits then they won't cooperate, and your chances of suffering a terrorist attack increase. As for their cooperation being illegal--the government is assuring the companies that the program is legal. It would be courts that might find the program illegal, in which case the companies would only find that their actions were illegal retroactively. In other words, the companies act on good faith. The immunity for the companies leaves the government as the responsible party. The government may still be sued. Why that's not good enough is the question.

3) Americans are entitled to some privacy. But we don't want privacy for Americans who are conspiring together with al Qaeda, do we?

4) The government would not have legal access to all of your phone conversations without question. The government has always had functional access to your phone conversations, in principle. The FISA legislation requires warrants, as I understand it. That isn't "without question."

5) Stupid premise, stupid question. The government doesn't need this legislation in order to abuse its power.

6) Easy. See #5.

7) Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee get it. Why don't you?

8) How about some support for those assertions?

9) How about some support for that assertion?

10) See #2

11) See #2

12) Sure. Anything's possible. What does that have to do with the FISA renewal?

13) Kind of depends on which law was broken, doesn't it? What does this have to do with FISA renewal?

You're not going to answer any of this. You're going to put up some stupid smiley-face or make your usual inane pet slogans. No harm. Reasonable people will think about it.

You're an idiot. You should have stopped with question 2, since you'd covered the issue by that time. Apparently you became enthralled by your own supposed cleverness and couldn't bring yourself to stop until after you'd embarrassed yourself with 11 useless questions.

[Guest Patriot]

These are not petty political differences. The Bush administration is the most criminal administration in our history - worse than Watergate, to use the book title of Nixon's former White House counsel John Dean, a Republican to this day. So I have some questions.

(1) Why can't the government get a warrant for wiretapping?

(2) Why should the telecoms have retroactive immunity for violating the law?

(3) Why shouldn't Americans be entitled to some privacy?

(4) Why should the government have access to all our phone conversations, indiscriminately and without question?

(5) The government can't possibly sort through all that information, but what it can do is misuse its power to persecute innocent people. With all the history of governmental abuses of power, why can't you see that?

(6) How can you call yourself conservative if you don't see it?

(7) Libertarians in your own party get it. Why don't you?

(8) Bush said he was going to cancel his trip to Africa unless he got what he wanted. If the government has lost the power to intercept terrorist communications (which it has not), then why did Bush jet off to Africa instead of staying in the White House to protect us as best he could?

(9) Why is Bush lying about losing the power to intercept terrorist communications, when everyone knows that the provisions of the old bill don't expire for another year?

(10) Telecom immunity for past acts has nothing to do with protecting us from terrorists now. If this was actually about terrorism, then why did Bush hold the bill hostage to the provision on telecom immunity?

(11) If the telecoms acted legally, they have nothing to fear. If they acted illegally, why shouldn't they be held accountable?

(12) Is it possible that a power-mad president and vice president have broken the law, and do not wish to have that fact uncovered?

(13) If they have broken the law, why shouldn't they go to prison?

You're not going to answer any of this. You're going to put up some stupid smiley-face or make your usual inane pet slogans. No harm. Reasonable people will think about it.

How does one respond to rampant confusion, hysteria and paranoia? Answer; one doesn't.

[Guest BushBacker]

The "Super Delegates" will spell the end of the Defeatocratic party as we know it. When it gets to

convention time with Obama holding a slight lead in delegates, the "Supers" ( most of which are in

Billory's pocket) will make the Ice Queen the winner. When that happens it will destroy the

Defeatocrats (not a bad thing). Obama's supporters will scream racism (even though the rules

clearly give the Supers the right to choose). The resulting uproar will give McCain the White House.

When that happens, all the Loony Lefties will be throwing themselves into the Passaic River and

Brian and I will be throwing a large party (no Kool-Aid allowed).

[Guest How Daring of You]

Ok ... in order to boost by lagging predictions I will predict that Obama will win Wisconsin by more than 4%.

However, Clinton will win both Texas and Ohio. The question is how much will Obama cut into her lead in the next two weeks? If I'm wrong and Obama wins either State, than it's over but I don't think that will happen. Clinton has spent too much time, money and effort in Texas and Ohio.

As far as Michican and Florida ... they knew the rules ... they went against the rules ... Clinton at least 'bent' the rules in courting their vote while Obama, Edwards and Richardson abided by the rules. I honestly don't know how you can allow their delegations to vote at all. At this point the waters are poisoned since, of course, Clinton would be their choice simply because she courted them. Unless Obama has it wrapped up by June, I'm sure there will be a floor fight over this at the convention.

Over the decades that I have been involved in politics, the primary elections have become more and more polorized. Conservatives dominate the Republican Primary while Liberals dominate the Democratic Primary. In the General Election, the moderate factions of each party and the Independents have a larger say. McCain and either Clinton or Obama will begin to drift back to the middle after they have their nominations. I guess all I'm saying is that it will be a whole different world in September than it is now so hold onto your hat. Old Rad ain't even thinkin about predicting that one.

I'll take the other side of that Wisconsin forecast; it'll be very close but Clinton will not lose -- if she loses -- by more than 4%.

I agree Clinton wins Ohio and Texas. But even if Obama's momentum swings either of those states to him, mathematically he still can't get to the required number of delegates without the superdelegates. We're on a path to a Convention floor fight unless the Michigan and Florida delegate problem is resolved.

Clinton no more "bent" the rules than did Obama. Neither one campaigned in either Florida or Michigan but both had their surrogates actively working the electorate. In Michigan, Obama-paid literature pushed the "none of the above" selection on the ballot since only Clinton's name was on the ballot there. Both the Obama and Clinton names appeared on the ballot in Florida and there was a record Democratic voter turnout. I agree with you that the rules are the rules. The only way out is a new election in Michigan and Florida. But, because the rules are the rules, keep in mind that the superdelegates can vote for whomever they want, right? (Most Obama people want the rules enforced with Florida and Michigan but then are willing to dispense with the rules when it comes to the superdels. How convenient.)

I agree with your analysis of the polarization of party politcs.

Don't forget, I've got Clinton ahead on March 5 and you have Obama ahead in delegates on that date.