Do you think Hillary should keep the democrat race going?
- Thread starter gonefishcrazy
- Start date
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2604752
There are probably 5% of cases that they need to interpret law. And the Constitution is over 200 years old... there are certain things and amendments that need updated or changed based on interpretation, and judges do have an effect on policy, because many of their cases set precedents.
If the Constitution needs to be Amended then let the Congress Amend it. (it was amended not too long ago as a matter of fact).That is NOT the job of judges. Nor is the Constitutional roll of judges to "change" anything.
The roll of the judicial branch is clearly defined in the Constitution Rylan.
In actuality, most cases do not set "precedent".
http:///forum/post/2604752
There are probably 5% of cases that they need to interpret law. And the Constitution is over 200 years old... there are certain things and amendments that need updated or changed based on interpretation, and judges do have an effect on policy, because many of their cases set precedents.
If the Constitution needs to be Amended then let the Congress Amend it. (it was amended not too long ago as a matter of fact).That is NOT the job of judges. Nor is the Constitutional roll of judges to "change" anything.
The roll of the judicial branch is clearly defined in the Constitution Rylan.
In actuality, most cases do not set "precedent".
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2605667
Constitution Rylan.
In actuality, most cases do not set "precedent".
Kinda splitting hairs, any ruling can be used as a precedent. Few cases set new precedents.
http:///forum/post/2605667
Constitution Rylan.
In actuality, most cases do not set "precedent".
Kinda splitting hairs, any ruling can be used as a precedent. Few cases set new precedents.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2605543
Got an e-mail today explaining why Obama is the Anti Christ
LOL, my friend was joking basing it off of that horribly written left behind series. It would seem in that book the prez of the usa was a black man with a woman vp who has a love child or something. (and it goes down from there)
http:///forum/post/2605543
Got an e-mail today explaining why Obama is the Anti Christ
LOL, my friend was joking basing it off of that horribly written left behind series. It would seem in that book the prez of the usa was a black man with a woman vp who has a love child or something. (and it goes down from there)
gonefishcrazy
Member
MSNBC thinks maybe Republican Hagel would be a good choice for Obama VP.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by gonefishcrazy
http:///forum/post/2606014
MSNBC thinks maybe Republican Hagel would be a good choice for Obama VP.
They dems can have hagel, he is republican in name only anyways.
http:///forum/post/2606014
MSNBC thinks maybe Republican Hagel would be a good choice for Obama VP.
They dems can have hagel, he is republican in name only anyways.
gonefishcrazy
Member
John Edwards took a long time but came at a great time.
Thanks John.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by gonefishcrazy
http:///forum/post/2608576
John Edwards took a long time but came at a great time.
Thanks John.
Oh a more serious note, who really votes based on who endorsed someone? Seriously, maybe I"m too cynical, but it is politics anyway, he was going to choose whichever horse he thought was going to win. And not the wrong one. I couldn't care less who endorsed which candidate. Maybe a group like who the nrh endorses would instigate some investigation, or who mediamatters or moveon.org who not to vote for but edwards is so insignificant does he really have a following who brings votes to which candidate. And if he really does why not endorse early to help the cause in more states?
http:///forum/post/2608576
John Edwards took a long time but came at a great time.
Oh a more serious note, who really votes based on who endorsed someone? Seriously, maybe I"m too cynical, but it is politics anyway, he was going to choose whichever horse he thought was going to win. And not the wrong one. I couldn't care less who endorsed which candidate. Maybe a group like who the nrh endorses would instigate some investigation, or who mediamatters or moveon.org who not to vote for but edwards is so insignificant does he really have a following who brings votes to which candidate. And if he really does why not endorse early to help the cause in more states?
gonefishcrazy
Member
Someone sent me this in an email. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-q4M...-obama-176430/
rylan1
Active Member
flpriest;2605636 said:Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2598517
I am pro life... but pro choice. QUOTE]
Rylan... I don't understand your contradictive statement... This is like saying, I am an athiests, but I believe God exists.
You are either pro life, or pro choice.
Not really... I believe in a woman's right to choose; however I do believe that choice should be to keep it. I believe there are other alternatives to consider, and this is a choice that you should talk with someone about first and that it would be the last option. Generally, I think it's a selfish act and something that it has a serious emotional impact... at least for those who believe it is morally wrong...but I just don't feel its my right to say people can't do it.
rylan1
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2605989
LOL, my friend was joking basing it off of that horribly written left behind series. It would seem in that book the prez of the usa was a black man with a woman vp who has a love child or something. (and it goes down from there)
In the movie, he was a white man... What does it matter anyway... some people think the world will end in 2012.... and some believe in the Rapture and Jesus' second coming...
If you believe in either.... either its destiny or prophecy of things that will come to pass... and that it will happen in its own time and that time has already been decided or "scheduled to happen"
http:///forum/post/2605989
LOL, my friend was joking basing it off of that horribly written left behind series. It would seem in that book the prez of the usa was a black man with a woman vp who has a love child or something. (and it goes down from there)
In the movie, he was a white man... What does it matter anyway... some people think the world will end in 2012.... and some believe in the Rapture and Jesus' second coming...
If you believe in either.... either its destiny or prophecy of things that will come to pass... and that it will happen in its own time and that time has already been decided or "scheduled to happen"
rylan1
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2608586
Oh a more serious note, who really votes based on who endorsed someone? Seriously, maybe I"m too cynical, but it is politics anyway, he was going to choose whichever horse he thought was going to win. And not the wrong one. I couldn't care less who endorsed which candidate. Maybe a group like who the nrh endorses would instigate some investigation, or who mediamatters or moveon.org who not to vote for but edwards is so insignificant does he really have a following who brings votes to which candidate. And if he really does why not endorse early to help the cause in more states?
It does have an impact... for a few reasons... In Dem race... a lot of what is left is up to Super Delegates.
Also Edwards was a viable candidate who's base (according to Clinton) are the "key" constituants Obama lacks.. I think it would have been better if he'd done this before WV, to see what impact it would have. However, announcing it in Mich, does help because of the issues in that state with the ballot/delegates... and because it is a largly blue color class state.
I think Obama may not appeal to uneducated dems because they don't read about or really follow the election.. and perhaps it may be based on economic issues such as jobs going to minoriites or oversees and people feeling like they are loosing their grip, and that Obama may not have their concerns at heart, or it could be they feel Clinton is a fighter, or it could be based off name recongition, or a few other things such as Wright, his name, race, healthcare, etc.
So this helps to reach out to those, with Edwards endorsement it shows that he believes Obama does have their concerns in mind, and that he is the best person to make the changes in their lives. But with Richardson... this speaks to the Hispanic/Latino population... etc...
Obama has outclassed Clinton in this game, which is very telling of who is better able to work within their own party.
Also a lot of this is political and has to do with who is more viable... Also many Super Dels want to see how their state votes... and others want to see the full course of the race because they need to hear and see everything before they make a decision.
http:///forum/post/2608586
Oh a more serious note, who really votes based on who endorsed someone? Seriously, maybe I"m too cynical, but it is politics anyway, he was going to choose whichever horse he thought was going to win. And not the wrong one. I couldn't care less who endorsed which candidate. Maybe a group like who the nrh endorses would instigate some investigation, or who mediamatters or moveon.org who not to vote for but edwards is so insignificant does he really have a following who brings votes to which candidate. And if he really does why not endorse early to help the cause in more states?
It does have an impact... for a few reasons... In Dem race... a lot of what is left is up to Super Delegates.
Also Edwards was a viable candidate who's base (according to Clinton) are the "key" constituants Obama lacks.. I think it would have been better if he'd done this before WV, to see what impact it would have. However, announcing it in Mich, does help because of the issues in that state with the ballot/delegates... and because it is a largly blue color class state.
I think Obama may not appeal to uneducated dems because they don't read about or really follow the election.. and perhaps it may be based on economic issues such as jobs going to minoriites or oversees and people feeling like they are loosing their grip, and that Obama may not have their concerns at heart, or it could be they feel Clinton is a fighter, or it could be based off name recongition, or a few other things such as Wright, his name, race, healthcare, etc.
So this helps to reach out to those, with Edwards endorsement it shows that he believes Obama does have their concerns in mind, and that he is the best person to make the changes in their lives. But with Richardson... this speaks to the Hispanic/Latino population... etc...
Obama has outclassed Clinton in this game, which is very telling of who is better able to work within their own party.
Also a lot of this is political and has to do with who is more viable... Also many Super Dels want to see how their state votes... and others want to see the full course of the race because they need to hear and see everything before they make a decision.
1journeyman
Active Member
Edwards is a trial lawyer. Does it surprise anyone he waited until the outcome seemed certain before making an endorsement?
His base is actually very similar to Obama; The rich, elite of the party.
His base is actually very similar to Obama; The rich, elite of the party.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2609070
In the movie, he was a white man... What does it matter anyway... some people think the world will end in 2012.... and some believe in the Rapture and Jesus' second coming...
If you believe in either.... either its destiny or prophecy of things that will come to pass... and that it will happen in its own time and that time has already been decided or "scheduled to happen"
I dunno that info was coming second hand, I read about 2 chapters of one. Then went off on a tyrade because it was written at such a low level. The drivel that counts at literature these days.
http:///forum/post/2609070
In the movie, he was a white man... What does it matter anyway... some people think the world will end in 2012.... and some believe in the Rapture and Jesus' second coming...
If you believe in either.... either its destiny or prophecy of things that will come to pass... and that it will happen in its own time and that time has already been decided or "scheduled to happen"
I dunno that info was coming second hand, I read about 2 chapters of one. Then went off on a tyrade because it was written at such a low level. The drivel that counts at literature these days.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2609087
It does have an impact... for a few reasons... In Dem race... a lot of what is left is up to Super Delegates.
Also Edwards was a viable candidate who's base (according to Clinton) are the "key" constituants Obama lacks.. I think it would have been better if he'd done this before WV, to see what impact it would have. However, announcing it in Mich, does help because of the issues in that state with the ballot/delegates... and because it is a largly blue color class state.
I think Obama may not appeal to uneducated dems because they don't read about or really follow the election.. and perhaps it may be based on economic issues such as jobs going to minoriites or oversees and people feeling like they are loosing their grip, and that Obama may not have their concerns at heart, or it could be they feel Clinton is a fighter, or it could be based off name recongition, or a few other things such as Wright, his name, race, healthcare, etc.
So this helps to reach out to those, with Edwards endorsement it shows that he believes Obama does have their concerns in mind, and that he is the best person to make the changes in their lives. But with Richardson... this speaks to the Hispanic/Latino population... etc...
Obama has outclassed Clinton in this game, which is very telling of who is better able to work within their own party.
Also a lot of this is political and has to do with who is more viable... Also many Super Dels want to see how their state votes... and others want to see the full course of the race because they need to hear and see everything before they make a decision.
So you think he really has a base of voters? Bush won that state when he was on Kerry's ticket. I guess democrats do vote for different reasons. identity politics.
I love it, you think uneducated people are racists.
"Obama may not appeal to uneducated dems... and perhaps it may be based on economic issues such as jobs going to minoriites"
Why do black people vote for obama?
http:///forum/post/2609087
It does have an impact... for a few reasons... In Dem race... a lot of what is left is up to Super Delegates.
Also Edwards was a viable candidate who's base (according to Clinton) are the "key" constituants Obama lacks.. I think it would have been better if he'd done this before WV, to see what impact it would have. However, announcing it in Mich, does help because of the issues in that state with the ballot/delegates... and because it is a largly blue color class state.
I think Obama may not appeal to uneducated dems because they don't read about or really follow the election.. and perhaps it may be based on economic issues such as jobs going to minoriites or oversees and people feeling like they are loosing their grip, and that Obama may not have their concerns at heart, or it could be they feel Clinton is a fighter, or it could be based off name recongition, or a few other things such as Wright, his name, race, healthcare, etc.
So this helps to reach out to those, with Edwards endorsement it shows that he believes Obama does have their concerns in mind, and that he is the best person to make the changes in their lives. But with Richardson... this speaks to the Hispanic/Latino population... etc...
Obama has outclassed Clinton in this game, which is very telling of who is better able to work within their own party.
Also a lot of this is political and has to do with who is more viable... Also many Super Dels want to see how their state votes... and others want to see the full course of the race because they need to hear and see everything before they make a decision.
So you think he really has a base of voters? Bush won that state when he was on Kerry's ticket. I guess democrats do vote for different reasons. identity politics.
I love it, you think uneducated people are racists.
"Obama may not appeal to uneducated dems... and perhaps it may be based on economic issues such as jobs going to minoriites"
Why do black people vote for obama?
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2599869
Republicans have uncommitted delegates and they are similar to Super delegates (the difference is that there are fewer uncommitted delegates and they don't have as much impact).
There really isn't any difference between the two other than like you said, the Dems have too many so they could in theory swing a primary election that isn't that close.
The one thing Democrats should be criticized for is their weighting of votes by district based on turnout in the previous presidential election. I was amazed when I learned they were doing that.
Then again I always said there was nothing Democratic about the Democrat party
http:///forum/post/2599869
Republicans have uncommitted delegates and they are similar to Super delegates (the difference is that there are fewer uncommitted delegates and they don't have as much impact).
There really isn't any difference between the two other than like you said, the Dems have too many so they could in theory swing a primary election that isn't that close.
The one thing Democrats should be criticized for is their weighting of votes by district based on turnout in the previous presidential election. I was amazed when I learned they were doing that.
Then again I always said there was nothing Democratic about the Democrat party
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2609189
The one thing Democrats should be criticized for is their weighting of votes by district based on turnout in the previous presidential election. I was amazed when I learned they were doing that.
What is wrong with that? Doing it that way it would be statistically improbably to have a general vote that does not coinside with a delagate count.
http:///forum/post/2609189
The one thing Democrats should be criticized for is their weighting of votes by district based on turnout in the previous presidential election. I was amazed when I learned they were doing that.
What is wrong with that? Doing it that way it would be statistically improbably to have a general vote that does not coinside with a delagate count.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by gonefishcrazy
http:///forum/post/2609030
Someone sent me this in an email. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-q4M...-obama-176430/
Kinda the height of hypocrocy for an Obama supporter to claim race based voting by anybody when he is drawing like 90% of the black vote
The tactic of the Obamites of calling anyone who votes against him racist (see first couple in the clip) will blow up in his face royally.
http:///forum/post/2609030
Someone sent me this in an email. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-q4M...-obama-176430/
Kinda the height of hypocrocy for an Obama supporter to claim race based voting by anybody when he is drawing like 90% of the black vote
The tactic of the Obamites of calling anyone who votes against him racist (see first couple in the clip) will blow up in his face royally.