Obama coasts in North Carolina; Clinton survives Indiana (3rd Roundup)

shuddup tonnyMay 9th, 2008 - 22:17:06

'What is wrong with giving campaign contributions anyway?As long as they are invested in a campaign '

He is buying off the people who will be directly voting for him you chimpanzee.

Notice how tonny first claims that the story is untrue and then claims that there is nothing wrong with Obama circumventing the democratic process by giving the superdelegates (who shouldn't exist in the first place) money to vote for him...

'sn't it corporate business that is showering the republican candidates,'

There are no Republican 'superdelegates' you idiot.

Report this comment

tonny from belgiumMay 10th, 2008 - 07:40:19

SP4,try using logics for a change .So you sayChina got privileged statu as a commercial partner in exchane of gifs from Chinese people ?I rather thing this status is the will of yyour entire corporate system so eager to move their production lines to China,where the local workforce can be easily exploited by them in echange for a few peanut .Ask Nike,Reebok,all the textile manufacorers where they produce their goods,ask them how much of the costs go into production and how much profit is made ?Then ask yourselves is THAt is not the right incentive for them to put pressure on your government,including Congress as it was ruled by the Republicans as these measures were taken .i guess soon the only industry left in the USA generating a lot of employment will be the armament business,right ?It least that sector will not easily be transferred to Chine due to the possibility of industrial espionnage .
Now that pressure only is capable of generating the special status China is enjoying .Very funny indeed that you are unable to grasp the powerfull mechanisms that drive the economy while getting lost in paranoical reflections on unproven allegations ,typically you .
In case you stilldon't understand;it is american manufactus responsible for moving production oversea,nobody else .

Report this comment

tonny from belgiumMay 10th, 2008 - 07:46:11

I'll gladly agree however with some of you stating your voting system is not suitable for modern times anymore .one man,one vote would be a good start to avoid some interference from undesired middlemen in the system.Now why isn't that happening .Your antiquated system had some us in pre industrialtimes,when rmote stated were easily reachable and were afraid to be left behind in the evolution to a better living standard .That argument seems obsolete now,can anybody seriously believe it still is useful ?

Report this comment

juhaMay 10th, 2008 - 13:50:45

it boils down to the Democrats so busy tainting their own water that they make people who like obama not like hillary enough not to vote for her.
and the people who like hillary to not like obamba and not voter for him.
its a lose lose for the democrats, and the republicans come up the middle.

Report this comment

really, give it upMay 10th, 2008 - 15:09:57

'Your antiquated system had some us in pre industrialtimes,when rmote stated were easily reachable and were afraid to be left behind in the evolution to a better living standard'

Whatever that means...

I think you are confusing the 'electoral college' with the 'super-delegates'. They are 2 different things and the 'super-delegates' are a modern, anti-democratic phenomenon which are impotent in one party only: the democrats.

Report this comment

this is how it works:May 10th, 2008 - 15:11:19

Abridged:

Hillary, Barack, want my vote? Just $20 million, please

Associated Press

LOS ANGELES - What will it take for a Democratic presidential candidate to win the support of California superdelegate Steven Ybarra?

Say, $20 million.

The Democratic National Committee member doesn't parse his words when it comes to what he wants from Barack Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton - an ironclad promise to spend that heady amount to register Mexican-American voters and get them to the polls in November.

In a telephone interview Wednesday, he said he plans to remain undecided in the tight contest until 'someone shows me the money.'

When will he settle on a candidate?

'Nobody showed me any money yet,' he said.

He's not kidding. To Ybarra, a Sacramento lawyer, the stakes are no less than winning the presidency in November.

He predicted that as many as 1.3 million Mexican-Americans could be added to voter rolls in New Mexico, Colorado, Florida and other swing states, a potentially decisive edge for the eventual Democratic nominee.

With that investment of funds, Mexican-Americans would realize Democratic leaders 'care about us,' Ybarra said, referring to Mexican-Americans.

Report this comment

SP4:good point, Tonny! Let's Investigate!May 10th, 2008 - 16:51:38

By the way, wasn't Hillary on the board of Walmart? Why...I think she was, Tonny!

Curious...afterwards, her husbands administration is accused of taking Chinese campaign funds...then, magically, China gets MFN status....then, after numerous foreign donations to the DNC, Clinton ramrods NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and every other free trade agreement through...?

Then, recently, Hillary is caught red-handed with the intrepid Mr. Penn pimping a TRADE deal to Columbia! Golly, Tonny, wasn't SHE the one talling everyone she objected to the free trade agreements??? A neat trick after her husband passed EVERY one!

Now ask yourself...whay is a trade deal with Columbia so important? Why would the chief strategist for BOTH Bill and Hillary be doing this?

Answer: Influence peddling. It's the only answer. She is on reocrd objecting to it but her man bitch is PIMPING it behind closed doors! Well, Sandy must have been busy...

Recently the Clinton Foundation has come under scrutiny for donations by governments and corporations before and after legislation, that Hillary voted on, was passed.

Now, far be it for me to cast doubts, but after:

FBI records scandal

Sandy Berg(l)ar pimping influence to AMOCO

Enron Donations to the DNC

Marc Rich Pardon after a $1 million donation to the DNC

I think we can all add two-and-two.

I think even the dems are tiring of this woman. More and more of them do NOT want to see her in the Oval Office. Obama now has numerical superiority in BOTH dlegates and Super Delegates.

The train is leaving, Mrs. Clinton needs to untie herself from the tracks.

Report this comment

tonny from belgiumMay 11th, 2008 - 08:51:28

For the record,I'm not confused by your electoral system .But there is realy only one democratical system,a very simple one :one man ,one vote .Then there is no need for this pre-electoral circus .I'm not sure but a possible side effect could be that the whole event would focus more o programs and less on character assasinaion .I've never notices a system or a country where the issues of elections drifterd so far from the intented goals of democracy,namely giving you choice between tendencies ,ideologies,programs,promises for a better future .Somehow many of you are convinced that dscussing personalities is the pinnacel of democracy .As if one is a better man or woman by pertaining to one single party .Is any republican realy believing that per definition a candidate that is belonging to the democratical partys is a crook as such?Or vice-versa ?I's even worse when one uses smear instead of rational thinking in an effort to convince the voters of one's point of view .Just one exampleto ellustrate that;SP4 always uses Mr Hsu in a vain affort to convince anybody that Clinto is in the pocket of the Chinese Government,insinuating even further that voting for her is simply handing over your country to some obscure Chinese lobby .Except for smear this indicates the usual paranoia .Suppose for a minute ilegal campaign contributions were recieved by Clinton,certainly a possibility .First of all I' d look into the mechanisms that make such donations possible,also what can be the results,I'm ask myself if it was possible for a candidate to find out if all contributions are bona fide.It implies that staffing of campaign contributions would rise perhaps tenfold,every person contributing would have to be scrutinized,his assets,bank accounts,rminal records,bussiness deals,family history,ducation,etc,etc would have to be examined and repertoriated .In fact every contribution would have to be treated by the candidate as a major criminal invetigation .What kind of time would that leave them ot busy themselves with the campaign ,their programs ?None at all of course,unless the delegate large parts of all activities associated with a presidential campaign to their staff,right ?Ten would you even consider giving that staff the powers to conduct a criminal inverstigation on the contributors .The first to oppose would be the republicans .Imagine for a second that anybody could investigate the bank account of such fine gentleman as the oil lobby,or the executives from Enron?That woyld perhaps be a great deal of fun in my eyes,but I'll bet you that the same people accusing Clinton of badlydealing with Hsu would raise a storm of protests if the top notch of corporate business was to be investigated every time they made a donation .
Only solution is to give all candidates similar access to the media,similar resources,no more corporate influence,no more ruling of your country by K-street lobbyists,no more handing out your administration to corporate businees,only interested in getting their own interests fulfilled .Wouldn't it be simpl?Just needed are equal media access,equal campaign funds and the chances are that more efforts would be made in explaining programs and debating important issues like measures to be taken to solve the enrgy crisis,the climate change issue,the problems of health care,international terrorism.As it stands now it appears the majority of americans thinks it is incorrectly informed,incompletely informed to say the leqt.Honestly ,that shows even in the comments made here on this site.

Report this comment

well doneMay 11th, 2008 - 09:24:09

good job

Report this comment

SP4: Another good point, TonnyMay 11th, 2008 - 15:17:32

Another set of pearls from swine. Honestly, I think I'm finally having an effect on you. Your point is well considered as to lobbyists. Should they have restrictions? If so, what kind?

How do you restrict access to government without hurting the citizens right to petition their government?

Now Hillary and Mr. Hsu, a convicted criminal, is just one little chapter in a litany of pecadillos the Clintons are famous for, never mind the list I rachet off, just in case you forget, which I'm sure you want to, desparately.

But restrict access to government?

No thanks. I'd rather let every lobbyist from the worst kind of groups have access than do that. Who decides? Who polices it? Who gets to play God?

We did ythis with the Federal Election Commission and now Harry Reid is slacking off appointing the memebers so they will be denied a quorum, which is holding back John McCain's federal funds he's entitled to, by law.

How's that for your public trust? Pure libnazi.

No, it is good we expose Harry Reid, and Hillary and her FBI record scandal, Her White Water, her greasy commodity trades, etc., etc.

THESE are the yardsticks to measure your government by. As for Mr. Hsu, He'll be available for comment in about three years, but by all means, just go ask Sandy Berg(l)ar, he was doing the same thing for the Clintons!

Report this comment

get a life tonny.May 11th, 2008 - 22:43:25

'For the record,I'm not confused by your electoral system .'

Well, yes, yes you are. You see, sanctimonious euro-parasites do not get to vote in our elections. Therefore the energy that you have put in to being a half witted blow hard who can't string 2 words together even in the age of spell check has been completely wasted on everyone except for the jealous Canadian schizophrenic.

'But there is realy only one democratical system,a very simple one :one man ,one vote .'

Well, no, there is something called a democratic republic, which is what the United States is. Our founding fathers rejected pure democracy for a republic to protect the minority from the 'tyranny of the majority'. We have been a democratic republic a lot longer then you have been a democracy so it must be working for us. Your government is a mess, yet instead of lifting a finger to correct it you whine about ours. What is that doing for you? You do love to pretend that you are 'educated' and toss out your supercilious psyco-babble but you come across as a prejudiced moron who doesn't know the first thing about the United States.

'Then there is no need for this pre-electoral circus .'

We do not want a parliament.

'I'm not sure but a possible side effect could be that the whole event would focus more o programs and less on character assasinaion'

All the information is available to the voters. Some people chose because of 'programs' some people chose because of 'character' and most take both in to account.

'.Somehow many of you are convinced that dscussing personalities is the pinnacel of democracy '

That certainly is not all that has been discussed. Your ignorance is truly incredible. However, once again: Character is an element of what people look for in electing a politician. You think you are sophisticated for ignoring it, I think you are an idiot for doing so.

'.Is any republican realy believing that per definition a candidate that is belonging to the democratical partys is a crook as such?'

Not by 'definition', no. You seem to believe the reverse is true. Republicans are fascist, warmongering, bible thumping creationists. You might want to examine your own stupid prejudices before you whine that others may have them.

'I's even worse when one uses smear instead of rational thinking in an effort to convince the voters of one's point of view'

So by 'smear' you mean something that is untrue or incorrect, right? Have you ever done that here? You have indeed. You work on a list of assumptions that are just flat out wrong, borne of reading the leftist tracts that masquerade as newspapers over there.

'Just one exampleto ellustrate that;SP4 always uses Mr Hsu in a vain affort to convince anybody that Clinto is in the pocket of the Chinese Government,'

'Mr Hsu' is a legitimate point of discussion. Foreign governments influencing US elections are a big issue here. Look at the Chinese human rights record, look what they are doing in Tibet, the Sudan and over Taiwan. The Clintons have given them a free pass on all of that by allowing trade policy to be divorced from pressure for human rights.

'Suppose for a minute ilegal campaign contributions were recieved by Clinton,'

There is no supposing involved, it is well documented.

'In fact every contribution would have to be treated by the candidate as a major criminal invetigation'

Nice leap in logic.

'Only solution is to give all candidates similar access to the media,similar resources,'

Once again, you arrive at your solution for everything: Socialism. We do not want it here. It doesn't work.

'Wouldn't it be simpl?Just needed are equal media access,equal campaign funds '

Well, McCain proposed holding the election using government money. Obama agreed... until he started raising lots of money. Now he has gone back on his word.

'As it stands now it appears the majority of americans thinks it is incorrectly informed,incompletely informed to say the leqt.'

You are a laughable pompous ass. You have no idea what you are talking about yet you presume to lecture us about what we see with our own eyes every day.

'Honestly ,that shows even in the comments made here on this site.'

Go back to your little on line socialist echo-chambers then.

Report this comment