Slashdot Mirror
Barack Obama Wins Democratic Nomination
An anonymous reader was one of many who noted that Barack Obama has claimed the Democratic nomination having secured enough delegates and super-delegates to claim victory. Of course, technically this assumes that the supers all vote as they say they will and they are free to change their minds. So no doubt we'll continue to hear debate on this subject until either the convention or Hillary steps down.
First of all, I'm not sure why this is "news for nerds", but I'll readily concede that it is "stuff that matters".
Obama may have the nomination, but someone really ought to tell Hillary. Last night, during her non-concession speech, she stated that she's "making no decisions tonight". Today I heard on NPR that she is "open to the Vice-Presidential spot", even though she may not take it...she "just wants to be considered".
Sweet Zombie Jesus...what will it take to make this woman go away???
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Better tell your Clinton friends to take a LONG HARD LOOK at the alternative. 4-8 more years of Iraq, world hatred, and the continuing decline of the economy is a BIG price just to pay for a little spite.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
In the US there are two major political parties, and each one puts one candidate up for the election in the general election for President. But before the general election, each party has the primary campaign, where individuals within each party run against each other for the right to be the candidate in the election. These primary campaigns basically involve citizens (when it's their state's turn) going and voting for the candidate that they want to represent whichever party. Depending on the rules of the particular state, sometimes you have to be a registered member of that party in order to vote, and sometimes they're open to anyone registered to vote at all. Basically the way it works is that depending on how many votes you get in a primary, then you get a certain number of delegates. Delegates are basically voting representatives for that state, proportioned by the relative populations of each state,and are expected to vote in accordance with the results of the primary popular vote in that state.
You don't need to win one of the primaries to run for president, but you need to win one if you want the support of one of the major political parties. For various reasons, it's currently not particularly practical for a candidate to win the general election unless they are a candidate from one of the two main parties.
The two major parties in the US are the Democrats and the Republicans. Each party creates the specific rules that are used in their own primaries to select their candidates. The democrats, for various reasons, have come up with a complicated system that not only has regular delegates, but also has "super-delegates." Supers are usually (but not always) individuals considered particularly important to the democratic party (elected officials, party leaders, etc), and they are free to put their delegate vote towards whichever candidate they wish. Basically, they're individuals who's vote counts for way more than the average person's. Their role is restricted purely to the democratic primary however, in a general election, their vote counts for no more than anyone else's.
That's just a brief overview, without the history of why super-delegates exist, but there's plenty of information out there to be found on that.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
Funny how you touch on shit that doesn't matter in the least, yet leave out the one thing that really does paint Obama as an elitist, insensitive bastard: him going on about how people only like guns/religion because they're poor, a month or two ago.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
> Generally you Democrats and Republicans I don't see enough difference between Republican and Democratic candidates. Party voters still make me sick
This is exactly why Hillary lost the game and Obama got it. People in US(and around the world , though irrelevant) were fed up of the status-co politics. They wanted something different and someone who can make a change. As citizens and consumers, people want products which are different. Especially when they realize that the product they have currently(Bush) sucks so bad. Hillary miserably failed to understand this pulse and stuck with same old crap. There is no perceivable difference between Hillary and Bush. The differences are really cosmetic. Iraq is just one example where there is a striking parallel between the policies of Bush/Mcain and Hillary.
http://www.nasirudheen.blogspot/
Take your trolling somewhere else. Obama in no way voted for the Patriot Act. Ever. Like the Iraq war authorization, that vote predated him in the senate. I can't believe someone marked you insightful. Here's proof. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313 He later supported revising it with civil liberties measures.
What signature defines me as a person?
You're assuming that governments are the only agencies capable of providing welfare, which is simply not true. Many charities and church organizations provide aid for people that need it, and the better part about those organizations is that since they rely on donations, they actually try to help the person get out of the economic situation that he is in, rather than doing nothing and letting the individual slum on the free cheese.
That's the issue many people have with government welfare programs, they don't provide much incentive for people to get off it.
Which do you think is better? Donating $50 to a charity that helps the poor, that is more likely to succeed at getting them out of their situations, and being able to write off the $50 for taxes, or not getting that write-off and have the government spend your $50 on people that probably won't ever leave the welfare system?
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
And Sen. Obama is offering exactly what as an alternative to more war? Certainly not immediate withdrawal from Iraq, despite how many Americans want that (it'll be a bloodbath if we leave now, we're told, as if Iraqi are so busy laying roses at our soldiers and mercenaries' feet). His Iran threat to the Chicago Tribune ("[T]he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures [to stop its nuclear program], including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point ... if any, are we going to take military action? ... [L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in" given the ongoing war in Iraq. "On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse.") and his recent vote for allocating $165 billion for the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan (including $51 billion dollars for veterans' education) tell me that he, like any other corporate-funded Democrat, have no principled objection to war or to these wars in particular.
As Cindy Sheehan recently reminded us, the Democrats have a strong history of war making and a lot to apologize for:
Digital Citizen
A choice quote from your link: "Watching the never-ending spectacle of glassy-eyed white girls gone wild for this mulatto, and knowing the Negro libido and psyche, one finds it almost impossible to believe that he has never taken advantage of his opportunities."
Would you care to renounce that author?
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Do some research on welfare (AFDC). ~55% of people on welfare in the US are off of it in less than 2 years: 20% are on welfare for less than 7 months. 15% are out in 7 to 12 months. 19% are off in 1 to 2 years.
That leaves 27% who are on it for 2 to 5 years, and only 20% who are on it over 5 years. The debates about this shit are so far divorced from reality anymore it is driving me crazy. THE US DOES NOT HAVE A WELFARE PROBLEM. For the most part it is working exactly as it should - helping people to become self-reliant.
And I quote:
"Despite claims in 2003 that Halliburton is the 'only company' that can handle the Pentagon's logistics work in Iraq, today's Post quotes a consultant for the company as saying, 'You're really asking too much of one firm to be able to manage all of this.' Other companies expected to bid for the contract later this year include Lockheed-Martin Corp. and Northrop-Grumman Corp."
Perhaps you haven't heard of Bunnatine Greenhouse?
"She testified before Congress that the contracts awarded to one of these subsidiaries, KBR, represented the "most blatant and improper contract abuse" that she had witnessed during her 20 year tenure working for the government."
The new LOGCAP 4 government contract is expected to have "robust competition" and be awarded to no less than three separate companies.
Seems pretty obvious after some simple research that KBR isn't the only company that can handle the job in Iraq.
Can someone PLEASE mod the above as "lazy"?
Mod ALL posts or comments in the media like this as "lazy", please?
Do I have to be the person to come and post "RTFM" ?
For everything that's holy you're on the fracking INTERNET! USE IT!
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
There you go. There are, in detail, his stances on the issues. Do you honestly think he has time to go over policy during a 5 minute campaign speech?
If this was too harsh, please mod me down, but I am really sick of people making that comment and I think that was the straw that broke the camel's back. Thank you and goodnight.
-