quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I think israel would do fine, they make enough money selling radars and other american designed systems to China.
Nice of them to use our time and money spent on research in order to make us less safe by selling technology that we won't sell to our biggest potential threat. Thanks allies!
America has sold stuff to Arab countries that Israel was involved in designing. Don't be such a hypocrite. Israel isn't responsible for America's security over its own.
I'm only a hypocrite if I actually support that, which I don't. If I had it my way, we'd never sell any military hardware to a foreign country unless it was two generations old. Maybe last generation if it was Western Europe, but otherwise nope. I don't think Israel is responsible for America's safety either, but that doesn't mean they can't hurt us, obviously.
I don't like selling advanced weapons to ANY country, not when there is even the slightest possibility that they could be used against us.
And Blayne -
Probably not, but I'd still support it. I never said that it would happen, I just said it'd be what I'd like to see happen.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyr, you seem to think the hardware is created solely by the US and sold to other countries. That is far from accurate.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I think israel would do fine, they make enough money selling radars and other american designed systems to China.
Nice of them to use our time and money spent on research in order to make us less safe by selling technology that we won't sell to our biggest potential threat. Thanks allies!
America has sold stuff to Arab countries that Israel was involved in designing. Don't be such a hypocrite. Israel isn't responsible for America's security over its own.
I'm only a hypocrite if I actually support that, which I don't. If I had it my way, we'd never sell any military hardware to a foreign country unless it was two generations old. Maybe last generation if it was Western Europe, but otherwise nope. I don't think Israel is responsible for America's safety either, but that doesn't mean they can't hurt us, obviously.
I don't like selling advanced weapons to ANY country, not when there is even the slightest possibility that they could be used against us.
And Blayne -
Probably not, but I'd still support it. I never said that it would happen, I just said it'd be what I'd like to see happen.
So in effect you are saying your irresonsible with the stability of the world and would openly support starting World War III because another country managed to acquire some of your advanced military hardware? Losing confidence in America's ability to win the dick waving contest are we?
IP: Logged |
posted
This has been a fantastic weekend for Obama. 5 resounding victories. And while the amount of delegates won from this weekend wasn't too large, it was enough to close the gap between himself and Hillary in total delegates and take a small but significant lead in delegates won.
And the fact that he now has won twice the states Hillary has can only help with his national appeal. This is great for his momentum heading into some larger delegate states this coming week(Maryland, Virginia, Wisconsin).
I don't think there's any way Hillary's campaign can spin anything good out of this weekend.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholar: Last week I received a call asking if I would be voting in the Republican primary. I said no, conversation ended. I am kinda curious what would have happened if I said yes.
If they were using a typical "script", they would have asked which candidate you were favoring and how heavily. If it was their candidate, they would have made sure that you knew your polling place and times and possibly asked if you needed a ride to the polls. Often you will get people who go "off script" and try to change your mind if you are only leaning toward the other candidate or if you haven't made up your mind.
At least that is my experience with making those calls. Of course, I haven't actually made any calls for Republican candidates...
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
*whisper whisper* did you know Obama favoured a Black child? */whisper whisper*
posted
Why I found the call weird was it was after super tuesday and our election isn't for another month.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most of the stuff below is just explaining my reasoning, so the "cut to the chase" is in bold. Delegates pledged by vote on the Democratic side: 3253 total qualified delegates 0128 disqualified Michigan delegates resulting from a machine-rigged primary 0185 disqualified Florida delegates resulting from a dubious primary 3566 total qualified&disqualified delegates
1786 half of all qualified&disqualified delegates 1003 Obama-pledged delegates 0783 + 1 more delegates needed by Obama to have more than half of all delegates pledged by vote 1250 remaining delegates to be pledged by vote 784 divided by 1250 means that Obama needs 62.72% or ~5/8ths of remaining delegates to win the pledged delegate count, regardless of Michigan's and Florida's delegate apportionment. Given the Florida results: 784 Obama-pledged delegates still needed (minus) 067 Obama-pledged Florida delegates (leaves) 717 Obama-pledged delegates still needed 717 divided by 1250 means that Obama needs 57.36% or ~4/7ths of remaining delegates to win the pledged delegate count, regardless of Michigan's delegate apportionment.
1786 half of all qualified&disqualified delegates 0923 Clinton-pledged delegates 0863 + 1 more delegates needed by Clinton to have more than half of all delegates pledged by vote 1250 remaining delegates to be pledged by vote 0864 divided by 1250 means that Clinton needs 69.12% or over 11/16ths of the remaining delegates to win the pledged delegate count, regardless Michigan's and Florida's delegate apportionment. Given the Florida results: 864 Clinton-pledged delegates still needed (minus) 105 Clinton-pledged Florida delegates (leaves) 759 Clinton-pledged delegates still needed 759 divided by 1250 means that Clinton needs 60.72% or more than 3/5ths of remaining delegates to win the pledged delegate count, regardless of Michigan's delegate apportionment.
So if Obama wins more than 1786minus67 (total - Florida) or 1719 currently-qualified pledged delegates, or if Clinton wins more than 1786minus105 (total - Florida) or 1681 currently-qualified pledged delegates, the odds are decent that enough superdelegates will vote for that candidate to maintain harmony at the DemocraticConvention, and to present a DemocraticParty united for the GeneralElection. In keeping with that, there will be some sort of arrangement to qualify&seat the Michigan and Florida delegates.
From the recent campaign results, it appears that: Obama can easily pull 2/5ths (14/35ths) of the remaining elected delegates to prevent Clinton from obtaining a clear victory in the qualified pledged delegate vote. And Clinton could pull 3/7ths (15/35ths) of the remaining elected delegates to prevent Obama from obtaining a clear victory in the qualified pledged delegate vote. But that depends on how Obama will fare in the Ohio and Texas primaries, which I can't even guess at.
The Michigan results are so screwed up by the removal of Obama and Edwards from the ballot that anything that even vaguely fits the description of fair delegate apportionment is impossible. It's extremely hard to get folks to come out to vote against a candidate or ballot proposition. Nonetheless 45% voted for "anyone but Clinton". I very much doubt that she could have pulled 45% with Obama and Edwards on the ballot, even with the Michigan non-campaigns. And doubt that she would have finished first in a fully contested primary. So the Michigan party*machine scored 74 delegates pledged for Clinton, and gets to select the 54 uncommitted delegates. (See the paragraph below) Guess which way those "uncommitted" will lean.
However, there are 51 delegates pledged uncommitted by vote. And the strongest influence in selecting those uncommitted delegates are the superdelegates of the state from which they come. And there are 26 Edwards-pledged delegates. But once he releases their pledge, they are free to vote for whomever they want. Edwards can recommend a candidate to his delegates, but he can't promise his delegates to anyone. The main positive is that his delegates will also be free of having been selected by home state superdelegates.
With any luck, those qualified uncommitted delegates will push a candidate over the top. Cuz if Obama isn't leading by at**least 167 currently-qualified pledged delegates by showtime, Clinton's gonna push a floorfight at the DemocraticConvention that's gonna spill over into the GeneralElection. If her currently-qualified pledged delegate count is over 1560, she probably will anyway in hopes of a victory handed over by the superdelegates. Edit in (see my next posting): She could have an improbable-but-still-realistic chance at winning with as little as 1440 currently-qualified pledged delegates.
* So we REALLY do NOT want to get to the point where Michigan's currently-unqualified pledged delegates become the decisive difference in who gets the most pledged delegates. ** To overcome the vote difference that seating Michigan and Florida would create.
posted
There's a lot of time between the last election and the Nominating convention. Do you think her candidacy wiill survive two or so months of her saying she plans to fight Obama's nomination and possibly ruin the party in the process?
I have to imagine (somewhat depending on McCain's role) that the backlash against her would be extreme. Her and Obama aren't operating in a vacuum, I think she'd be in trouble if she tried, and I think it'd really poison the well in the General. For that matter, I think the party higher ups would step in, in other words, I think it'd cost her superdelegates, if she even had any left at that point anyway.
Texas and Ohio...it's really hard to say. The polling data for Ohio is way out of date, and even Texas at a week and change old is too old to matter anymore. Obama is picking up steam, and a lot of analysts are saying that latinos don't have a special dislike of him or like of Clinton, it's just that his name recognition is poor among them, and as this thing goes on, the latino vote is starting to split more and more, which helps him in Texas.
Obama won Maine yesterday by another large margin. He's poised to take the Potomac Primaries tomorrow, maybe by large margins. Wisconsin is Clinton's last hope to have any kind of PR fodder when March rolls around, and her lead there is tenuous. I'm curious to see more polling data, and more so after Tuesday.
rivka - No, that isn't what I think. Blayne - Sure.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: rivka - No, that isn't what I think.
Good. So stop oversimplifying.
Israel has a thriving engineering/electronic sector, and a lot of "American" hardware was developed in part there.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't believe I was, and I don't know where you got that impression. But when Israel has American military hardware it got under an agreement not to sell to others without our permission, and then we hear that they did it without our permission, I have a valid argument, and that's what I was referring to. Israel's defense industry is dependent upon foreign arms sales. They export more of a percentage of what they produce than ANY country in the world (to forestall anyone who might trot out the fact that the US sells a lot of weapons too). Though I'm mildly surprised that Russia doesn't beat them in that category, it's probably just because Russia outproduces them in sheer numbers.
I don't have a problem with them selling homegrown technologies, but not stuff that we gave them under promise of secrecy.
Do you have a problem with that?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
By the way, that vote count in Washington deal is lame beyond description and if they don't resolve it soon, it is going to develop into a scandal. Way to strengthen the party, bros!
posted
"Very strange to think of two 'grammy award winning artists' in an election."
Kinda like winning the "Stinkiest Shoes" contest.....but far less cool.
Made my previous posting a bit easier to read by putting the most cogent points in bold. And below is another factor I failed to mention.
The DemocraticNationalConvention is pressuring Michigan and Florida to hold new elections, at least in the form of caucuses. If Michigan and Florida refuse to hold new elections: Obama still faces the challenge of having enough excess currently-qualified pledged delegates if Clinton pushes a floorfight over the acceptance of the Michigan and Florida delegations. So Obama still needs to have 1719 currently-qualified delegates to guarantee a win in the pledged delegate count over the Michigan and Florida hurdle. And 717 delegates are still needed by Obama from the pool of 1250 remaining elected delegates. Clinton doesn't need an excess of currently-qualified delegates because Florida's and Michigan's current(ly-unqualified) delegate apportionments favor her. Thus Clinton needs to have only more than half of the 3253 or 1627 currently-qualified delegates to win the pledged delegate count, so: 1627 half of all currently-qualified delegates 0923 Clinton-pledged delegates 0704 delegates are still needed by Clinton to have more than half of all delegates pledged by vote 1250 remaining delegates to be pledged by vote 704 divided by 1250 means that Clinton needs 56.32% or 9/16ths of the remaining delegates to win the pledged delegate count, regardless of whether Michigan's and Florida's delegate apportionments are accepted.
Assuming that Michigan and Florida will refuse to hold new elections, then extrapolating from the recent campaign results, it appears that: Obama can easily pull 43.78% (~7/16ths) of remaining elected delegates to prevent Clinton from obtaining clear victory in the pledged delegate vote. And Clinton could pull 42.74% (~3/7ths) of remaining elected delegates to prevent Obama from obtaining clear victory in the pledged delegate vote. But it's a closer call. And it still depends on how Obama will fare in the Ohio and Texas primaries, which I can't even guess at.
quote: Obama still faces the challenge of having enough excess currently-qualified pledged delegates if Clinton pushes a floorfight over the acceptance of the Michigan and Florida delegations.
The super-delegates are the democratic party insiders. The democratic party decided to strip Michigan and Florida of their delegates.
If Clinton wants a pissing match at the convention, the very people she is fighting against are the ones with the power to choose Obama.
"Sure Hillary, we'll seat Florida and Michigan. Okay, lets count... Looks like the super-delegates are voting 795-1 against you. You've still got Bill though!"
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
A lot of people in Michigan are pissed at her over Michigan, and if she fights to get her Michigan delegates sat, they'll be outraged. They're pissed at the DNC for trying to get us to hold a second election (which we won't because it's too expensive). But Clinton blithely ignored us, and even dissed us when she was pandering to New Hampshire about their first state status. If she now tries to fight to get us sat, people will feel jerked around, and they'll be pissed when the General comes around.
I'd still vote for her, but I'll be furious about having to, if that's what happens. I don't think it'll come to that though. I really don't.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But when Israel has American military hardware it got under an agreement not to sell to others without our permission, and then we hear that they did it without our permission, I have a valid argument, and that's what I was referring to.
It was never sold; selling it was in negotiation. The US demanded that it not be sold, and the negotiations ended.
And it was not US technology alone. It was a combination of US and Israeli.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
DailyKos is pushing a moneybomb for Obama today. They want people to donate $5.01 to his campaign because Lincoln is on the $5 and the penny, and of course, because it's Lincoln's Birthday. No word really on how widespread it'll be. Aren't 501's those organizations that take all the heat for their fundraising? Ironic.
I've been considering donating a small amount myself lately, and was considering donating part of my tax return. Voting started in the primaries today one and two hours ago, depending on where you are and will close tonight at 8pm. Happy voting all Atlantic seaboard citizens!
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Aren't 501's those organizations that take all the heat for their fundraising? Ironic.
501(c) is the section of the IRS code that deals with non-profit organizations. So pretty much any organization that does fundraising is a 501(c) organization. The number after the (c) tells you what type of organization it is and their status is in regard to tax-deductability of the donation.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, that superdelegate article is something else. I guess it makes sense that a local party official who's a super would get attention like any of the congresspeople or governors who are supers, but it's got to be kind of surreal for a college student.
Also, after that MSNBC anchor's comment that got him in trouble I have to ask: When it was time for Jason to have breakfast with Chelsea Clinton, did he call her or just nudge her?
posted
Ha! There was an election report just now on NPR that started off with "Here in pastoral Libertytown..." That's my polling place. So based on that report and my knowledge of how my family has voted I can say with certainty that Obama has 2 votes, Clinton 1 and McCain 1. Of course, we're a pretty Republican district, so that may be all the votes Obama and Clinton get here.
There are two things that mildly concern me about the process. First, I have never once been asked for photo id when I've voted, no matter the state or the district. And it amazes me every time. The polling place workers have no proof other than my ability to recite my address that I am who I say I am. It just seems to me that using photo id for verification would further reduce the chances of election fraud.
Also, while the touch screen voting machines are spiffy (far spiffier than the connect the dots scantron sheets I got to use the last time I voted in Maryland), I kind of wish they would print out a copy to use as a back up, just in case something happened.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: No, they called her daughter a pimp. She has taken all kind of language leveled at her; she drew the line when it was aimed at her daughter.
I applaud that.
I thought the quote was that she was "pimping out her daughter," which would mean he was calling Hillary the pimp and Chelsea the prostitute. Which is certainly still insulting her daughter, but it makes scholar correct about who was being called the pimp.
posted
I think she's justified in being offended. I just wondered if she was really going to give up the opportunity to have the debate, since it was something she had asked for.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still think she was right to defend her daughter. And I don't think she'll have a problem giving up the debate. You think they'll have a problem finding someone else to host it? She'll still get the number of debates that Obama promised to, besides, MSN will apologize 16 dozen times and then she'll agree to do it. That's just a guess, but I think she will.
Most party insiders and some analysts are saying that if Clinton can't win Texas and Ohio by "comfortable margins," she's done. The superdelegates will step in and hand it to Obama. Huckabee is doing them a HUGE favor by postponing the coronation of John McCain, and it might be enough for the Democrats to sort themselves out, but this won't go all the way to the convention, the party won't let that happen, because A. They aren't stupid and B. They want to win the White House more than they want to back Clinton.
My personal opinion is that this won't go past Pennsylvania. I think her and Obama will, at worst, split both Texas and Ohio 50/50 pretty much, it won't be decisive. And given that, Obama will declare victory, and the superdelegates will raise him up. Unless she can come up with a stunning victory, I don't see how she can justify dragging us all along with her.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw an article on CNN today about how Wisconsin was her bulkhead. She's starting to sound eerily like Rudy Giuliani did leading up to Florida.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
For today, Maryland (though you'll know the results in 8 hours, but whatever):
February 10th - Barack Obama 55%, Hillary Clinton 32%, other 1%, uncommitted 6%, undecided 5%
Virginia: February 10th - Barack Obama 60%, Hillary Clinton 38%, other 2%, undecided 1%
And then Rhode Island
February 10th - Hillary Clinton 36%, Barack Obama 28%, uncommitted 27%, undecided 9%
That one is virtually useless with such a high number of uncommitteds.
And in a stunning flip in Wisconsin -
February 7th - Hillary Clinton 50%, Barack Obama 41%, someone else 1%, undecided 8% February 11th - Barack Obama 50%, Hillary Clinton 39%
That pretty much eliminates any chance Clinton had to score any kind of victory before the March 4th contests. February, with the exception of Super Tuesday, might be a clean sweep for Obama.
pooka -
From what I've been hearing, Texas and Ohio serve that function now. She keeps moving the goal posts every time she gets bad news. But from what I hear, Texas and Ohio ARE going to be her last stop. If she doesn't win big she might have to go home.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's kind of sad that the idea of the convention actually serving its purpose in selecting the nominee is seen as this crippling handicap for either party. I don't dispute the strategy advantage of being able to start promoting a candidate when it's decided upon months ahead of time, but it seems weird that having the delegates actually have to vote is treated like the end of the world.
How is the party stepping in before all the state primaries are done and declaring a winner or pressuring one candidate to step out supposed to be more democratic than letting all of the delegates and superdelegates vote at the convention?
posted
More Americans have participated in a meaningful primary this year than any prior cycle, which I think is generally a good thing.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
