By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - The Super Tuesday Thread

The_vagabond7 on 06 February 2008

I don't understand why the democrats go through all the hoops with superdelegates, splitting delegates, ect ect. Why is that advantageous? The republican candidate is pretty much a lock at this point with McCain, which seems alot more advantageous. He's less likely to get pulled through the mud by the other nominees trying to get ahead, and it gives more time to try to get as many republicans behind him as possible. Where as Obama and Clinton will probably tear into each other now, drag each other's names through the mud, try as hard as possible to make the eventual winner look as incompetent and evil as possible, and end at the finish line by a nose with a very bitterly divided democratic base.

I want a democrat to win (though McCain's not looking too shabby), but it seems like the democrats are pretty self defeating. Is there some brilliant hidden advantage to their process that I am unaware of? I'd like to know if there is.



You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 06 February 2008
Phendrana said:
Kasz216 said:
Phendrana said:

We're not fighting a tangible enemy like we did in past wars. It's just like the war on drugs. Or for an even better example, Anonymous vs. Scientology. There can't be a time when we can declare victory over "terrorists." It's designed to be perpetual, and will go on as long as the "terrorists" still "hate our freedom" (which they WILL if we keep putting troops in their countries and keep installing governments). Our economy is tanking and our military is spread way too thin. We can't afford this continued war effort any further. In case anyone forgot, btw, this is exactly what Bin Laden was trying to do to begin with: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/

And McCain has already been quoted as saying "there's going to be more wars" (an article with the quote: http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=54294 ). He's also talked about military options against Iran. I just don't understand why the American people, after being so fed up with our current war, would actively vote for ANOTHER man who's firmly pro-war. He's standing right in front of everyone saying this, but nobody's listening.

 


Pretty much any president will go to war with Iran in the next few years. Mccain is the only one being honest about it. Iran with nuclear weapons is about the last thing the world needs... they're leadership is crazy, and losing control of their country slowley as those younger people who want change are becoming the majority. They're just the kind of nation to consider a double nuclear suicide with a country like Israel, let alone giving nuclear weapons to people to hit europe and the US.

Democrat or Republican... we'll probably be in Iraq. Of course a lot of people knew that before the Iraq was and were against the war because of that. We knew we'd have to invade Iran beforehand.

I think that was Bush's real master plan. He thought he could invade Iraq set up a democracy and have US military bases set up in Iraq to inavde Iran with. However he both underestimated the situation on the ground and Iran's progress in developing nuclear weapons.


I agree with you. Iran shouldn't be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. However, going to war should not be the only option already. The latest intelligence report says Iran halted its nuclear weapons program back in 2003 and hasn't restarted it since. It also says they won't even be technically capable of creating a single weapon until 2013, possibly not even until 2015+. The attitude that Iran must be stopped now using military force is nothing more than the same war mongering and kneejerk reactions that got us into Iraq. There may very well come a time when it's absolutely necessary, but that time is far from now.

The intelligence report: http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf

EDIT: Damn, you guys are fast lol


No.  It says they won't be able to produce enough Plutonium by 2015.  Which says nothing about the Uranium enrichment that goes on everyday that could be switched from civilian use to weapons use at any time. 

The report you directed to says they could produce enough Uranium by as early as 2009 if things go there way.  When your president you have to plan for everything.  Even things that are "unlikely". 

It doesn't say they won't techncally be able to create a weapon until 2013, it says they think Iran will likely run into problems that will slow down their uranium enrichment.

All this report really says, is that you've got to watch Iran closely. Me, i hope negotiations start back up and the EU bribes them to let Russia do all their uranium enrichment.  Since it's feaseable however for them to have enough uranium to make a bomb well pretty much during the entire presidential term of the next president it seems like a good idea to be prepaired.  This isn't even counting any uranium that might of been missed or purchased elsewhere.



That Guy on 06 February 2008
The_vagabond7 said:
I don't understand why the democrats go through all the hoops with superdelegates, splitting delegates, ect ect. Why is that advantageous? The republican candidate is pretty much a lock at this point with McCain, which seems alot more advantageous. He's less likely to get pulled through the mud by the other nominees trying to get ahead, and it gives more time to try to get as many republicans behind him as possible. Where as Obama and Clinton will probably tear into each other now, drag each other's names through the mud, try as hard as possible to make the eventual winner look as incompetent and evil as possible, and end at the finish line by a nose with a very bitterly divided democratic base.

I want a democrat to win (though McCain's not looking too shabby), but it seems like the democrats are pretty self defeating. Is there some brilliant hidden advantage to their process that I am unaware of? I'd like to know if there is.

 Let me make a football analogy. McCain has basically clinched the division and will have bye weeks up until the superbowl.

 Obama and Hillary are slugging it out just to get into the playoffs. But because of that, they will have been battletested and drilled and attacked and point-counterpointed that by the time someone wins, the nominee will have a very solid plan worked out for the nation. Essentially, the nominee will have more practice defending his/her stance.

And since both know that McCain will be the Republican nominee, that gives Obama and Hillary all the more time to gameplan against him. McCain will have to prepare for both candidates at this point, since he won't know who his opponent will be in the general election.

 

 



The_vagabond7 on 06 February 2008

I guess I can see some merit in that, but Clinton and Obama are still going to trash each other to hell and back, making both of them look less appealing and splitting the democratic base in the end. Or at the very least, give McCains camp plenty of fodder to continue the attack.



You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.

Kasz216 on 06 February 2008
The_vagabond7 said:
I don't understand why the democrats go through all the hoops with superdelegates, splitting delegates, ect ect. Why is that advantageous? The republican candidate is pretty much a lock at this point with McCain, which seems alot more advantageous. He's less likely to get pulled through the mud by the other nominees trying to get ahead, and it gives more time to try to get as many republicans behind him as possible. Where as Obama and Clinton will probably tear into each other now, drag each other's names through the mud, try as hard as possible to make the eventual winner look as incompetent and evil as possible, and end at the finish line by a nose with a very bitterly divided democratic base.

I want a democrat to win (though McCain's not looking too shabby), but it seems like the democrats are pretty self defeating. Is there some brilliant hidden advantage to their process that I am unaware of? I'd like to know if there is.


Super Delegates are a way to keep guys like Obama out. Well Obama may be the exception. But Super Delegates are basically each party a way of making sure an mainstream candidate gets in by giving the party bosses some extra votes not counted by the people to stack in whatever favor they want.

Super Delegates are basically a joke as it grants 1 person as much power as hundreds of votes. The Republicans have them too... they just have less. Partially because they just have less delegates, and partially cause it was the democrats scam in the first place.

It's really a disgraceful practice.  I think something like 20% of the delegates this year will be Super Delegates.  Which is just stupid, that these people would have that much say vs the common man.  Seems anti-democratic party to me.  

Both Republicans and Democrats have states that split delegates. The fact that some states do and some don't is also a farce if you ask me.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 06 February 2008

Oh. By the way... Yes Bill Clinton is a Superdelegate. Actually so are Obama and Hillary I believe.

I think it's anyone who has been a president, govoner, senator, congressman... and some other things. 



Avinash_Tyagi on 06 February 2008

Well even wit hthe infighting Obama and Hillary both had more support than mcCain did



 

Predictions:Sales of Wii Fit will surpass the combined sales of the Grand Theft Auto franchiseLifetime sales of Wii will surpass the combined sales of the entire Playstation family of consoles by 12/31/2015 Wii hardware sales will surpass the total hardware sales of the PS2 by 12/31/2010 Wii will have 50% marketshare or more by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  It was a little over 48% only)Wii will surpass 45 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  Nintendo Financials showed it fell slightly short of 45 million shipped by end of 2008)Wii will surpass 80 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2009 (I was wrong!! Wii didn't even get to 70 Million)

Desroko on 06 February 2008

Every Democratic member of Congress and governor is an unpledged delegate, actually. The Republicans and Democrats have the same proportion of unpledged delegates, roughly one-fifth.



Phendrana on 06 February 2008
Kasz216 said:
Phendrana said:


 

I agree with you. Iran shouldn't be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. However, going to war should not be the only option already. The latest intelligence report says Iran halted its nuclear weapons program back in 2003 and hasn't restarted it since. It also says they won't even be technically capable of creating a single weapon until 2013, possibly not even until 2015+. The attitude that Iran must be stopped now using military force is nothing more than the same war mongering and kneejerk reactions that got us into Iraq. There may very well come a time when it's absolutely necessary, but that time is far from now.

The intelligence report: http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf

EDIT: Damn, you guys are fast lol


No. It says they won't be able to produce enough Plutonium by 2015. Which says nothing about the Uranium enrichment that goes on everyday that could be switched from civilian use to weapons use at any time.

The report you directed to says they could produce enough Uranium by as early as 2009 if things go there way. When your president you have to plan for everything. Even things that are "unlikely".

It doesn't say they won't techncally be able to create a weapon until 2013, it says they think Iran will likely run into problems that will slow down their uranium enrichment.

All this report really says, is that you've got to watch Iran closely. Me, i hope negotiations start back up and the EU bribes them to let Russia do all their uranium enrichment. Since it's feaseable however for them to have enough uranium to make a bomb well pretty much during the entire presidential term of the next president it seems like a good idea to be prepaired. This isn't even counting any uranium that might of been missed or purchased elsewhere.


No, it doesn't. It mentions Plutonium once at the very end, which coincidentally also won't be ready until 2015. What it talks about throughout the entire report is HEU (Highly Enriched Uranium). HEU is enriched to a FAR greater extent than the reactor grade uranium used for nuclear power. They can't just decide one day to place uranium from a nuclear reactor into a missle. Doesn't work like that.

It also says it's "very unlikely" they'll be able to produce enough HEU for a weapon by 2009. Their estimated timeframe is 2010-2015, with 2013 being the most reasonable estimate based on Iran's current technology and progress.

And like I said, a plan of action is one thing, carrying out that plan before it's necessary is something else entirely.



Kasz216 on 06 February 2008
Phendrana said:
Kasz216 said:
Phendrana said:


 

I agree with you. Iran shouldn't be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. However, going to war should not be the only option already. The latest intelligence report says Iran halted its nuclear weapons program back in 2003 and hasn't restarted it since. It also says they won't even be technically capable of creating a single weapon until 2013, possibly not even until 2015+. The attitude that Iran must be stopped now using military force is nothing more than the same war mongering and kneejerk reactions that got us into Iraq. There may very well come a time when it's absolutely necessary, but that time is far from now.

The intelligence report: http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf

EDIT: Damn, you guys are fast lol


No. It says they won't be able to produce enough Plutonium by 2015. Which says nothing about the Uranium enrichment that goes on everyday that could be switched from civilian use to weapons use at any time.

The report you directed to says they could produce enough Uranium by as early as 2009 if things go there way. When your president you have to plan for everything. Even things that are "unlikely".

It doesn't say they won't techncally be able to create a weapon until 2013, it says they think Iran will likely run into problems that will slow down their uranium enrichment.

All this report really says, is that you've got to watch Iran closely. Me, i hope negotiations start back up and the EU bribes them to let Russia do all their uranium enrichment. Since it's feaseable however for them to have enough uranium to make a bomb well pretty much during the entire presidential term of the next president it seems like a good idea to be prepaired. This isn't even counting any uranium that might of been missed or purchased elsewhere.


No, it doesn't. It mentions Plutonium once at the very end, which coincidentally also won't be ready until 2015. What it talks about throughout the entire report is HEU (Highly Enriched Uranium). HEU is enriched to a FAR greater extent than the reactor grade uranium used for nuclear power. They can't just decide one day to place uranium from a nuclear reactor into a missle. Doesn't work like that.

It also says it's "very unlikely" they'll be able to produce enough HEU for a weapon by 2009. Their estimated timeframe is 2010-2015, with 2013 being the most reasonable estimate based on Iran's current technology and progress.

And like I said, a plan of action is one thing, carrying out that plan before it's necessary is something else entirely.


When talking about nuclear weapons "Very unlikely" to me sounds like "Better have a plan in place a half a year before hand."  Would suck to be caught off guard because someone underestimated Iran.  It's not like we haven't had intelllegence mistakes.

Call me the cautious type though.  I'm the guy that likes to be in the right lane on a street when I know i need to take a right turn 5 stop lights down.

2010-2015 would be running right through the next presidents run assuming the next president doesn't blow.