USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by ryberg

I've just come up with a potentially great idea: I'll just not pay the taxes I don't want to pay, when the tax code starts not to favor me so much, and then when the IRS comes around, I'll ask for a printed version of that tax code and blame on them my apparent failure to request and check that out like I should have before I began working and gaining income in the system and implicitly accepting that same tax code!

This has possibilities...

Steve

You see what I mean?...I just love this stuff!

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by Jacko

You see what I mean?...I just love this stuff!

And you, you're just trying to pour gasoline on a fire or something! Make a comment of your own if you wanna get into something!

Seriously, I personally think it would be bizarre to learn that there's no written version of the rules of the Texas Democratic Party primary, for one thing -- do they really claim there is none??? -- but even in that bizarre instance, you decide to become a candidate and run in the Texas Democratic Party's primary, that pretty much means you accept the Texas Democratic Party as the authority on their own primary, don'tcha? I move to Mexico, I accept Mexican law and Mexican officials as the authority; I want an iPhone, I accept Apple's pricing and warranty system and AT&T's monthly costs and so forth as what they are; I run as a Democrat nationally, I accept that superdelegates exist and have no obligation to be fair or reflect the popular vote, that MI & FL will have no delegates, that some states involve caucuses rather than primaries...

Steve

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by ryberg

And you, you're just trying to pour gasoline on a fire or something! Make a comment of your own if you wanna get into something!

Seriously, I personally think it would be bizarre to learn that there's no written version of the rules of the Texas Democratic Party primary, for one thing -- do they really claim there is none??? -- but even in that bizarre instance, you decide to become a candidate and run in the Texas Democratic Party's primary, that pretty much means you accept the Texas Democratic Party as the authority on their own primary, don'tcha? I move to Mexico, I accept Mexican law and Mexican officials as the authority; I want an iPhone, I accept Apple's pricing and warranty system and AT&T's monthly costs and so forth as what they are; I run as a Democrat nationally, I accept that superdelegates exist and have no obligation to be fair or reflect the popular vote, that MI & FL will have no delegates, that some states involve caucuses rather than primaries...

Steve

Somedays there is just not enough time to get actively involved.......especially with you two....

[roni]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Do you think that is the case?

But even if it were the case, the point holds: you don't go into litigation after the race has already started and only when you face the prospect of losing. You were incensed by my rants against superdelegates, and again, I never advocated litigation. Why is this case different, other than that the candidates complaining are now reversed?

Steve

I think entertained mostly, except when you were saying nasty things against nice, Democratic party activists.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by roni

I think entertained mostly, except when you were saying nasty things against nice, Democratic party activists.

Answer the question, Senator!

Steve

[roni]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Answer the question, Senator!

Steve

Has Obama complained about the DNC and Democratic rules about unpledged delegates?

I know you have cried to high heavens about it, but has the candidate?

[jtm1631]

Personally the infighting (the campaign and playa.info) is getting tiresome. (nothing personal folks)

We all just need to wait and see what happens this week. The media is looking for a story and the candidates are looking for ways to boost their nominations.

Like I have said before, the next few days will be very telling. Until then,

[melliedee]

Just saw this on MSNBC. Gloria Steinem:

"Suppose John McCain had been Joan McCain and Joan McCain had got captured, shot down and been a POW for eight years. [The media would ask], 'What did you do wrong to get captured? What terrible things did you do while you were there as a captive for eight years?'" Steinem said, to laughter from the audience.

McCain was, in fact, a prisoner of war for around five and a half years, during which time he was tortured repeatedly. Referring to his time in captivity, Steinem said with bewilderment, "I mean, hello? This is supposed to be a qualification to be president? I don't think so."

At this rate, all of the candidates will need to reject and denounce all of their very unhelpful endorsements. What an idiotic thing to say? Clinton responded immediately:

The Clinton campaign sends over the following statement from Howard Wolfson: "Senator Clinton has repeatedly praised Senator McCain's courage and service to our country. These comments certainly do not represent her thinking in any way. Senator Clinton intends to have a respectful debate with Senator McCain on the issues."

OPINION Blog | The Dallas Morning News

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by roni

Has Obama complained about the DNC and Democratic rules about unpledged delegates?

I know you have cried to high heavens about it, but has the candidate?

Riigghhhht... That's the point.

You're arguing my point now? (Well, also the point MWC was making, I believe, in fairness.)

You argued that litigation would be welcome and appropriate if the Clinton campaign found something in the TX primary to be unfair. I said, by that argument, Obama should have already begun litigation re superdelegates (and Clinton should have begun litigation re both MI & FL and against the caucus system in general). When asked for clarification, I said, in each case the issue would be somebody in the race who thinks something is unfair going to litigation on it.

I'm glad to hear it if you agree that that's kind of silly!

(And I get it that you still didn't answer the question. )

A n y w a y s . . . Again we will hopefully have no litigation of any sort tomorrow night, just election results coming in.

Steve

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by melliedee

At this rate, all of the candidates will need to reject and denounce all of their very unhelpful endorsements. What an idiotic thing to say?

Yeah, I have to wonder about this. I mean, personally I can't believe that people got upset over Obama's answer in the debate that he couldn't go around telling people not to say they like him. I find McCain's state re his endorsement by the evident hater of Catholics, Hagee, which precisely mirrors Obama's initial position re people like Wright and Farrakhan, to be the sensible one. Of course the fact that somebody endorses you doesn't indicate that you agree with everything that somebody says or does. The whole idea of endorsement would logically then be impossible, as nobody agrees with everything anybody else says or does and would thus have to denounce and reject© them. Yet it has been as if people just simply didn't listen to Obama when he said multiple times, I don't agree with everything Minister Wright does or says or with the views of Louis Farrakhan. In the exactly parallel situation with Hagee, why hasn't McCain been pushed to completely denounce and reject Hagee? He not only hasn't done it, he's made a statement that he's not going to. And nobody is worried, it seems.

And Obama is supposedly the one getting the soft treatment from the press?

Steve

[Sol]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Just saw this on MSNBC. Gloria Steinem:

Steinem's comments are inappropriate since there were women who were POW's during the Vietnam war. While she does make her remarks to question McCain's qualifications, what does that say about women who were imprisioned during this time.

Here is a list of women POW's:

During the Vietnam War Monika Schwinn, a German nurse, was held captive for three and a half years - at one time the only woman prisoner at the "Hanoi Hilton".

The following missionaries were POWs:
Evelyn Anderson, captured and later burned to death in Kengkok, Laos, 1972. Remains recovered and returned to U.S.

Beatrice Kosin was captured and burned to death in Kengkok, Laos, 1972. Remains recovered and returned to U.S.

Betty Ann Olsen was captured during a raid on the leprosarium in Ban Me Thuot during Tet 1968. She died in 1968 and was buried somewhere along Ho Chi Minh Trail by fellow POW, Michael Benge.

Eleanor Ardel Vietti was captured at the leprosarium in Ban Me Thuot, May 30, 1962. She is still listed as POW.

[roni]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Riigghhhht... That's the point.

You're arguing my point now? (Well, also the point MWC was making, I believe, in fairness.)

You argued that litigation would be welcome and appropriate if the Clinton campaign found something in the TX primary to be unfair. I said, by that argument, Obama should have already begun litigation re superdelegates (and Clinton should have begun litigation re both MI & FL and against the caucus system in general). When asked for clarification, I said, in each case the issue would be somebody in the race who thinks something is unfair going to litigation on it.
Steve

Your persist in being unable to state your case clearly, much less have much luck in repeating mine *sigh*

The rules about super-delegates are wrote down

The Democratic convention can change just about any rules it wants to and still be within the rules. That rule is also wrote down.

Both those are national DNC issues.

Texas rules that ain't wrote down is state party stuff.

There is very little similarity where you seek it.

So sad.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by roni

Your persist in being unable to state your case clearly, much less have much luck in repeating mine *sigh*

The rules about super-delegates are wrote down

The Democratic convention can change just about any rules it wants to and still be within the rules. That rule is also wrote down.

Both those are national DNC issues.

Texas rules that ain't wrote down is state party stuff.

There is very little similarity where you seek it.

So sad.

Wow, do you get patronizing!

Shall we go back and look for your own quotes about not changing the rules in the middle of the game?

You do not seriously think that the Texas Democratic Party got all the way to the 2-3 days before their primary without anybody noticing that there were no written rules, do you? Because we can have a swampland for sale discussion, I think, if you do.

But again, no difference: you enter the race, you accept the results. Challenging the arrangement of the TX primary now is exactly equivalent to challenging any of the states where caucuses were held now. It's just desperately grasping at straws.

Steve

[roni]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Wow, do you get patronizing!

I was kindy tired of getting patronized my own self, Mr Ryberg.

I humbly apologize for responding in kind - and will leave you to once again dominate this thread with your incredible volume of stuff.

Haven't you reached the end of the internet yet?

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by Sol

Steinem's comments are inappropriate since there were women who were POW's during the Vietnam war. While she does make her remarks to question McCain's qualifications, what does that say about women who were imprisioned during this time.

Agree, Sol. And add the fact that mocking McCain's service to the country as not good enough to qualify him to be president has about the same effect as mocking eloquence; that is, none at all! It backfires as petty arguments should.

Steinem should be more savvy than this if she wants to speak for feminists, imo.