Comments on: Clinton Continues Dishonest Campaign–This Time Misrepresenting ABC News http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3171 Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:02:49 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: bruce banter http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3171&cpage=1#comment-203250 bruce banter Tue, 10 Jun 2008 00:28:40 +0000 http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3171#comment-203250 Someone who conducts a campaign like this is likely to govern like this. After what we have gone through with the Bush administration, we do not need a president who repeatedly does not tell the truth.AMEN Someone who conducts a campaign like this is likely to govern like this. After what we have gone through with the Bush administration, we do not need a president who repeatedly does not tell the truth.AMEN

]]> By: You Can’t Have it Both Ways Mrs. Clinton - The Liberal’s View « CrossPolemics http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3171&cpage=1#comment-188174 You Can’t Have it Both Ways Mrs. Clinton - The Liberal’s View « CrossPolemics Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:42:12 +0000 http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3171#comment-188174 [...] My father heard the best analogy from a pundit that illustrates this illogical mindset Tuesday night:  It’s like one baseball team about to clinch the division, and the other team suddenly wants to count spring training games.  Ron Chusid from Liberal Values put it in stronger terms:  “Someone who conducts a campaign like this is likely to govern like this.   After what we have gone through with the Bush administration, we do not need a president who repeatedly does not tell the truth.”  http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3171 [...] [...] My father heard the best analogy from a pundit that illustrates this illogical mindset Tuesday night:  It’s like one baseball team about to clinch the division, and the other team suddenly wants to count spring training games.  Ron Chusid from Liberal Values put it in stronger terms:  “Someone who conducts a campaign like this is likely to govern like this.   After what we have gone through with the Bush administration, we do not need a president who repeatedly does not tell the truth.”  http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3171 [...]

]]> By: Ron Chusid http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3171&cpage=1#comment-188031 Ron Chusid Thu, 24 Apr 2008 05:47:48 +0000 http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3171#comment-188031 Danny, You are confused because you got the arguments wrong. In elections the rules must be set before the election and they cannot be changed mid course or after the fact. In 2000 the problem was not that Gore won the popular vote. The winner of the electoral college, not the winner of the popular vote, should become president less these rules are changed. The problem was that he won in Florida if all the votes were counted but was denied the electoral votes. Many of the protests were over the Republicans going to the Supreme Court to override state law to prevent a recount. (Here it is the Republicans, not Democrats, who were inconsistent for ignoring their usual support of state's rights when it became politically expedient.) Just as the winner of the electoral college vote wins presidential elections, the nomination is determined by delegates, not popular vote. Using the popular vote retroactively for the nomination creates additional problems, such as with Michigan and the caucus states. An additional problem with Clinton's argument is that she is actually trailing in the popular vote while she is making false claims of leading. Danny,

You are confused because you got the arguments wrong.

In elections the rules must be set before the election and they cannot be changed mid course or after the fact.

In 2000 the problem was not that Gore won the popular vote. The winner of the electoral college, not the winner of the popular vote, should become president less these rules are changed. The problem was that he won in Florida if all the votes were counted but was denied the electoral votes. Many of the protests were over the Republicans going to the Supreme Court to override state law to prevent a recount. (Here it is the Republicans, not Democrats, who were inconsistent for ignoring their usual support of state’s rights when it became politically expedient.)

Just as the winner of the electoral college vote wins presidential elections, the nomination is determined by delegates, not popular vote.

Using the popular vote retroactively for the nomination creates additional problems, such as with Michigan and the caucus states.

An additional problem with Clinton’s argument is that she is actually trailing in the popular vote while she is making false claims of leading.

]]> By: Danny http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3171&cpage=1#comment-188030 Danny Thu, 24 Apr 2008 05:36:03 +0000 http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3171#comment-188030 Democrats confuse me to no end. In 2000 you all whined because Gore "won" the popular vote but not the delegate vote. Now when it comes to getting Barry nominated, it's NOT about the popular vote, but rather the number of delegates. Pick a lane and stay in it. Democrats confuse me to no end. In 2000 you all whined because Gore “won” the popular vote but not the delegate vote. Now when it comes to getting Barry nominated, it’s NOT about the popular vote, but rather the number of delegates. Pick a lane and stay in it.

]]>