Reply #172: Calling your bullshit, Clinton supporters double standards, and your arguments fault [View All]

[Yotun]

I’ve been watching this forum on and off since the primaries started but never bothered to vote since I already waste too much time in other boards. But this is going too far and the pathetic back-slapping and high-fiving by Clinton supporters whenever somebody makes another ridiculous, illogical, and non-realistic post, is funny and disheartening at the same time.

You seem to be missing a key point in this whole rant.

-Yes Conservatives didn’t want McCain, and they didn’t want him to be the nominee. Yes the hated him. Yes they did anything to have somebody else, and yes they eventually fell in line.

-WHY did they fall in line? Can you guess why? Because McCain WON! And he WON by winning the most PLEDGED DELEGATES. And even Republicans have the decency apparently to respect democracy and put the will of the people of their party above their egos, something SOME people in the democratic party seem incapable to do.

-Your argue by using the GOP as example, and fail to realize that this example is exactly proving the opposite of what you want to say! The elite of the party eventually fell in line to the candidate with the most pledged delegates, even if they didn’t want him, felt him unelectable, or against their views. The party elite did not overturn the will of the people. Despite all the animosity, and all the hatred, and all the negatives that they felt about McCain, they eventually supported the person who won in pledged delegates- had they done the opposite would be the case where your example supports what you want done with the democratic primary.
-And here’s another thing you are missing. As has been my experience with many Obama supporters, they d say indeed that they would vote for Hillary were she to be the nominee. They would have voted for her if she won the primary, and they would prefer her to McCain. That is what the polls show when they show Obama supporters are more willing to vote for Hillary than Hillary Obama, since Obama supporters are more mature and less stuck on a personality cult of the perfect queen who simply-can’t-lose.

-BUT, they will vote for her IF CLINTON WINS THE CONTEST. If Clinton LOSES the pledged delegate count (as she mathematically has), and thus LOSES by the will of the people, and yet a party elite overturn the decision of the people and make her the nominee, effectively stealing the election from Obama, then a lot of Obama supporters who would have voted for her otherwise, will NOT vote for her. AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY SHOULD. And shame to any idiot who will vote for her if she is the nominee with a minority of the pledged delegates, for he cares for neither his nation nor his party.

-If the super-delegates were meant to overturn the will of the people, and be the eventual deciders according to ‘electability’ (in which your candidate loses as well by the way), pledged delegate count be damned, what’s the point of having a primary season in the first place? Why not have the candidates compete with each other for months, and then carry out polls showing performance against the opponent at the last week and decide by themselves? This would remove the problem of ‘buyers remorse’ of the first states (another stupid argument used by Clinton supporters).

-No the fact is, super delegates have the OBLIGATION to vote according to the wishes of pledged delegates, even if that is not specifically set down in the rules. THAT is what democracy is all about. Those super-delegates and party elite have a party because people VOTE for that party to exist. If the people vote that the candidate which best represents them is a certain person, then the party elite has the obligation to accept that candidate however they may feel about him. For one thing, it is tyrannical to assume that 800 elite super-delegates have a greater knowledge and can judge better who people will vote for than the MILLIONS of Americas who have actually voted for their preference. Secondly, even if the feel that the candidate is genuinely unelectable, SO FUCKING WHAT? That is the nature of democracy, that the majority candidate wins and the minority must go along with it. If the people of the democratic party, weighing in the flaws and the positives of an Obama candidacy, decide that Obama is the person they want representing them, who are the super-delegates to decide otherwise, whatever the reason, and overturn their will?

-Would you accept your candidate winning the November election CLEARLY, and a political elite deciding to give the presidency to the candidate who loses, because they have special knowledge and realize the losing candidate is better suited for the presidency, despite what the voters say? Would you accept accept a political elite overturn the will of the people in the actual election because the losing candidate is judged by that same elite to possess an arbitrary quality- whether it is electability in 2012, or knowledge of economics- that the other candidate does not? THIS IS NOT DEMOCRASY! This is tyranny, and monarchy.

-If Clinton loses the pledged delegate count, but is given the nomination by the super-delegates, then YOU MUST NOT VOTE FOR HER. I cannot stress this enough. There is too much at stake to vote for her if she wins like that. Yes she may agree with you more on the issues than McCain, but what will be at stake will be democracy itself. For, for all his flaws, McCain won his nomination fairly and democratically. By electing Hillary you will be telling the political elite of the country that they can over-turn the will of the voters, they can pick candidates that are NOT who the people chosen, and that you will STILL go along and vote for them. It will set a far too dangerous precedent for the future, and will consolidate power no on the hands of the people but on the hands of an insider few with the better connection in the political elite. Next election, somebody else will steal the election from the proper winner, with an other excuse. The next election, it will be another excuse, and in the end they won’t even bother to give excuses to you. If you want democracy to mean something, and your vote to be important, do NOT vote for Hillary Clinton.

-And yet look at Hillary and her supporters speak about, not disenfranching states, when she has mathematically lost the pledged delegate count, and when almost all past conventions were decided far before the convention. When with the same voice she used to say the election would be decided in February, or March, and had no plan for campaigning before that. When with the same breath she condemned Ralph Nader because ‘his supporters won’t be voting for McCain anyway’ so he will be taking votes from the democrats. What happens to voter enfranchisement then Hillary huh? Double speak, and saying onething when it supports her, and another when it doesn’t.




- Look at Hillary with one breath say that the Florida delegates should be seated, because they were gained in an election run on an ‘even playing field’, even though it clearly disenfranchised many voters by telling them their vote wouldn’t count so they didn’t bother, and with the same breath say she won’t accept a Caucus to repeat the Florida election, because it disenfranchises voters EVEN THOUGH A CAUCUS IS A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR BOTH CANDIDATES. If using the same rules on a caucus for both candidates, Obama wins, its suddenly not ok because it disenfranchises voters. When the whole Florida election disenfranchised everyone, its ok, because it was a level playing field. WHY ISN’T ANYBODY CALLING HER OUT ON THIS SHIT?

- Look at Hillary and her supporters, with one breath say that the super-delegates should get to vote despite the will of the people, and that Obama hasn’t won because he hasn’t reached the 2000 something delegates needed, and that’s what the rules say, and then with the same breath proclaim that Obama HASN’T won Texas, and that Florida and Michigan should be seated, DESPITE WHAT THE RULES SAY. Again, double standards for the queen.

-And finally to the pathetic and frankly idiotic argument, of if Obama is so certain to win, why haven’t super delegates come out for him then:
1) If you haven’t noticed a lot of them HAVE, and a lot of them ARE calling for Clinton to quit the race.
2)Because they know that despite the fact that Obama HAS won, if they do decide to support him now and end this without Clinton first quitting by herself, she will proclaim that the rest of the states and herself were disenfranchised, and that the primary should have been left to conclude, and they know, that if they do so, they will fracture the party (because a lot of stupid Clinton supporters will apparently lap that up and are already saying they won’t vote for Obama even if he fairly wins), and this will cost them the November election. THAT is why they aren’t coming for Obama now, because they know that Hillary’s actions have made it so that they party will be fractured if we do not pander to her every wish and do not support the guy who has won, and instead must wait for the convention to satisfy her vain pride.

AND NEXT TIME, USE YOUR DAMN HEAD BEFORE POSTING