MERGED--> NH predictions + Hillary's win + NH recount?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
melon said:


I'm concerned that many Democrats want to ignore reality and live in a wholly pacifist fantasyland. Of course, I understand that much of this has to do with how fabricated Iraq was. That doesn't mean, however, that all of our potential external threats are wholly fabricated.

They wouldn't be threats to us if we didn't interfere with them. That is why they are threats, because we go into their land and tell them what to do. If we stayed out of all their business like Canada does, we wouldn't need to lose time, money and American lives waging wars on the other side of the globe in order to defeat "threats."
 
Dalton said:
Here's a question for all of you who are a little more politically savvy than I - CNN is showing that Clinton is winning the popular in NH, but Obama has more delegates than she does. Does that mean that he would still technically 'win' NH because more state delegates would vote for him at the convention?
 
Infinitum98 said:
They wouldn't be threats to us if we didn't interfere with them. That is why they are threats, because we go into their land and tell them what to do. If we stayed out of all their business like Canada does, we wouldn't need to lose time, money and American lives waging wars on the other side of the globe in order to defeat "threats."

This is true for some threats, but not for others.

That view is too simplistic.
 
The latest results include Dartmouth, so that's probably why CNN called it for Hillary.

Dartmouth easily went for Obama, but the number of votes certainly aren't enough to overcome the deficit he already has.

Obama 58.16% 2,779 votes
Clinton 26.12% 1,248 votes
 
phillyfan26 said:


This is true for some threats, but not for others.

That view is too simplistic.

Yes but I was referring to the radical Islam threat, Iraq, Iran which is what i'm pretty sure that melon was referring to. Radical Islam wouldn't be a threat to us if we stayed out of their business.
 
Infinitum98 said:


They wouldn't be threats to us if we didn't interfere with them. That is why they are threats, because we go into their land and tell them what to do. If we stayed out of all their business like Canada does, we wouldn't need to lose time, money and American lives waging wars on the other side of the globe in order to defeat "threats."

We've already interfered with them. Get it?

What's done is done.

Deal with the problem as it actually exists not as an ideal.

That's a moderate, objective, realistic viewpoint, IMO.

That doesn't work well in rallys when you're calling for "change" and trying to placate the left wing idealists but it's as fucking real world as it gets.
 
Infinitum98 said:

Radical Islam wouldn't be a threat to us if we stayed out of their business.

I don't want to start a discussion about this, as it's completely off-topic, but that is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.
 
Dalton said:
Fuck. I need Edwards to get out of this race before super tuesday. I can't imagine that Clinton would get a lot of his supporters.

While I agree that a majority of his supporters would go to Obama, I think some who cite health care as their number one concern might go with Clinton.
 
Infinitum98 said:


Yes but I was referring to the radical Islam threat, Iraq, Iran which is what i'm pretty sure that melon was referring to. Radical Islam wouldn't be a threat to us if we stayed out of their business.

My post stands exactly as said.

Way too simplistic of a view.

For some parts of radical Islam, that's true.

For others, they'd still be threats.
 
2861U2 said:


I don't want to start a discussion about this, as it's completely off-topic, but that is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

I know you are a neo-con so hence you are never going to see reality, so that is why I don't want to start a discussion either. But your ignorance and arrogance are one of the stupidest things that i've ever seen.
 
Infinitum98 said:
They wouldn't be threats to us if we didn't interfere with them. That is why they are threats, because we go into their land and tell them what to do. If we stayed out of all their business like Canada does, we wouldn't need to lose time, money and American lives waging wars on the other side of the globe in order to defeat "threats."

It is a fairly nice sounding platitude, but isolationism has not suited the U.S. historically. We're stuck in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of scenario. "Damned" if we do get involved in global conflicts, because then we're interpreted as the "world police"; "damned" if we don't, because then we're seen as being self-centered, irresponsible global citizens. How many in the anti-war crowd wanted the U.S. to get involved in Darfur, Sudan?

I'm not here to defend Iraq, which was, in hindsight, an ideologically driven escapade given false justification after the fact (as anyone having studied PNAC can attest to). But one colossal mistake (Iraq) should not automatically lead to the other extreme of isolationism.
 
teacher1.jpg
 
U2DMfan said:


We've already interfered with them. Get it?

What's done is done.

Deal with the problem as it actually exists not as an ideal.

That's a moderate, objective, realistic viewpoint, IMO.

That doesn't work well in rallys when you're calling for "change" and trying to placate the left wing idealists but it's as fucking real world as it gets.

Yea, we've already interfered with them. They attacked us, so there is nothing wrong in fighting back (Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda). But why continue to interfere with them in Iraq, Iran, etc.? We don't need to do that.
 
Dalton said:
Is anyone going to answer my question about the delegates?

We're talking two tiny states with relatively few delegates. It could theoretically go to anyone in later primaries at this point.
 
Back
Top Bottom