Does Barry Hussein have a new problem to deal with?Follow

You're kidding, right? Funny. Every single time I've ever heard someone try to argue that Bush "stole" the election, it's always been followed (or preceded) with a statement about how Gore got the majority of the popular vote. Aside from the rare exception, the Supreme Court's involvement never even enters most people's radar screens on that issue...

We probably had a half dozen different threads about the election back then. The overwhelming subject matter within those threads was a discussion about how the electoral college is "bad" because Gore won the popular vote but Bush got the presidency.


I'm not sure how you think you're different then "most people". If we were in the middle of a thread about the EC, and someone mentioned how wrong it was for Bush to win the election since Gore got the most popular votes, are you seriously trying to claim that you'd disagree? Am I to believe that you would correct them all and say that it wasn't the EC that was the problem, but that the Supreme Court stepped in?

You're kidding too, right? No one makes that argument. Smash only made it because it's a bit of BS he can use to try to justify how it's ok for his party to have a system in which direct popular vote doesn't matter. It's a convenient distraction. That's all. Neither one of you would or have or likely ever will argue that there's nothing at all wrong with the Electoral College, but neither will you ever apply the same arguments to the Democratic nomination process.


Look. I have absolutely no problems with the Dems and their caucuses and superdelegates. Whatever system they set up is a legitimate system. But then, I apply the same logic to the EC. The system we have (including the role of the court btw!) is the one we have. It's "legal". It's how presidential elections are decided. No one "stole" an election because those rules resulted in them winning. In exactly the same way that it's not wrong for Obama to win the Dem nomination despite having received fewer popular votes. He's got more delegates, and that's what matters.

And guess what? If the superdelegates all decide to break for Clinton for some reason, and she wins, that's *also* completely fair. Wouldn't you agree?

You're kidding, right? Funny. Every single time I've ever heard someone try to argue that Bush "stole" the election, it's always been followed (or preceded) with a statement about how Gore got the majority of the popular vote.

Stop hanging out with fucking idiots, I guess.

Not true. Sometimes Flishtaco posts.

As opposed to the liberals who repeat cnn, npr, or any of the major 3 news conglomerates talking points?

I think what you mean is "state facts" as opposed to "repeat arguments that make no sense"

It's sort of like Christians and Agnostics.

Which only proves that you blindly accept whatever they say as "facts". Could you be a bit more fanatical?

Um... You do realize that it's not the Right in the US in a frenzy about his name/race/religion, right? It's the Left in this country that is so enamored with the idea of electing someone with his name/race/religion/whatever that they're willing to ignore the massive problems with him as a candidate.

Yeah, "massive problems" like advocating for everything I believe it. I mean, obviously I'd blindly vote for any black guy, but it's so much harder when I have to overcome his intelligence, charisma, oratory skills, fund raising prowess, and lack of ties to special interests. I probably won't even vote.



Conservatives oppose Obama because he has a shocking lack of experience for the office. Liberals support Obama because he's black, with a foreign sounding name, and a pseudo-Muslim upbringing. You are correct that there's a lot of irrationality about him because of those things, but it's not the Right you should be looking at.

I can't even imagine how bitter you'll be when not only does Obama win 300+ electoral votes, but the anti gay marriage ballot measure gets crushed on the same night.

Man, it's gonna be a great fall.

Like elimination of wealth?

I don't advocate elimination of wealth.


Like creation of a "meritocracy", wherein the government decides how much your job should pay based on some kind of assessment social contribution?


I don't advocate for that.


Creation of a state that provides "cradle to grave" care, but takes away any ability for you to care for yourself (see "elimination of wealth" above).


Or that.


Um... So basically he advocates an authoritarian state in which the individual has lost most of his rights, but has all his other needs taken care of. So, nice comfy slavery?


When you said you excel at logic, that one time, and we all laughed, did you actually mean some other word?


Want to maybe remove the everything from your previous statement? Cause I don't think even you think he's quite that radically socialist.


Nothing you've described has anything to do with Socialism. I'm sure it probably came to you in a vision that it did, or whatever the bumbling process is that you arrive at opinions, but sadly for you, it's not the case. It does *sort of* read like what a complete sucker without the threshold level of intellect to ever question what he was told might think of Socialism if he was particularly careful not to ever take his instructions from unbiased sources.




None of which qualify him for the job he's seeking Smash. What's funny is that you actually think that list of things do qualify him. In your world, perception trumps reality every single time, doesn't it?


What is you think qualifies someone to be the leader of a nation state? Wait, let me guess. Being a ****** pilot, leaving your wife and kids for a wealthy woman young enough to be your child, and making sure your new drug addict wife doesn't do any jail time for stealing Vicodin.

Am I close?




Keep thinking that Smash. While I'm sure the Dems will do well in Congress, Obama is just the wrong candidate for them to field for the presidency. Which is funny since you've done such a great job creating anti-Bush and by extension anti-Republican sentiment that the Dems *should* have won this round. Somehow you managed to find just about the only candidate that'll manage to lose anyway...

Really? I have a wager for you, then. If Obama wins, you post your photo and legal name. If McCain wins, I'll never post here again.

Seems fair, no?

What happens if the Bush administration pulls some crazy fascist **** right before the elections, and either lengthens his own term or installs McCain himself? You give them far too little credit.

srsly haet dat guy