Brazilian MP: Iran ties don't mean we're anti-Israel - Jerusalem Post [getdailynow.blogspot.com]
Question by misteraxe: How about the "Big State" vs little state arguement? The Clinton talking points include the arguement that "she is winning the big states" so only she can compete in the general election. That arguement seems disingenuous to me. In reality, most dems will vote that way in the election, so the big state vs little state doesnt really work, they are not facing a republican in the primary so the dynamics are completely different. Best answer for How about the "Big State" vs little state arguement?:
Answer by Billy
She has won most Big States including the Key State... but we will see, if she doesn't win, it will be the first Dem to lose from Ohio.
Answer by Vince Foster
So one one hand she argues that every vote should be counted and on the other she says that smaller states votes don't matter. She will say ANYTHING to get elected.
Answer by Mr. Touchet
Okay, you are right, lets see what happens in a general election. Btw, I live in one of those big states and i won't support Obama and I have voted democrat ALL of my life, How many times have you voted for a democrat?. Nah nah na nah na naaaah!
Answer by change
Her statement reflects her argument, they are dis-in-generous, in other words Hillary makes her lies up as she go. I so sick.
Answer by solootions
It is very disingenuous to say that only the big states matter. The whole point of having the Electoral College in the general election is to ensure that even the small states have a voice, and by saying that only the big states matter definitely quashes the opinion of the little ones. Additionally, how sure is Clinton that the big states will swing towards McCain automatically if Obama get's the nomination? Hillary is hanging by a very small thread, and she's willing to say and do whatever to get what she wants.
Answer by Feedupamericanvet
To be President history shows that a candidate MUST win the Large states to be President......In last 50 years the winner of OHIO of both primary and main election wins Presidency.......Hilary beat Obama in Ohio......Democrats are on a losing bet if Obama carries the nomination.
Answer by soleil
Ah, You are just jealous you can't win the BIG states. SORRY
Answer by meg
It is no more disingenuous than Obama's claim the he should get the nomination because he has won more states. What matters is people not where they live.
Answer by Songbyrd11
I think the issue is will any Dem win in Utah? Wyoming? Winning those states gives the nothing to the Democrat s. Winning Ohio does. Clinton is more popular in those places. Also, Clinton voters are less likely to vote of Obama. He will be the weaker candidate, and another Repub admin is going to sink this country.
Answer by Joe in texas
Like the popular vote argument this is another ruse. The one with the most delegates wins. That's the rule. It doesn't matter if your delegates came from big states, little states, blue states, red states, southern states, or any other knid of state!
Answer by nonny0
aren't illinois and texas "big" states?
In their fourth game of the season, the Boise State Broncos stuffed up New Mexico in the first half. But the Lobos fired out ready to play the second half and outscored Boise State 29-7 in the third and fourth quarters before turning over the ball on ... Boise State vs. Southern Miss: 5 Keys to the Game for the Broncos
Oliveira, a member of Brazil’s lower house, the Chamber of Deputies, supports Brasilia’s continued trade with the Islamic Republic, which reached $ 2.33 billion in 2011.
Oliveira, along with 24 other parliamentarians from 17 nations, are in Jerusalem for the International Israel Allies Foundation’s conference of pro-Israel members of national legislatures around the world. They were briefed on the Iranian nuclear threat and participated in a panel to seek a solution to the issue.
According to Oliveira, however, Iran’s nuclear capabilities pose no threats.
“The Brazilian government’s understanding is that Iran is not constructing nuclear weapons,†he said. “The technology they are developing is only for civilian purposes.â€
In 2010 Brazil voted in the UN against sanctions on Iran, and signed a fuel-swap deal with Tehran.
Oliveira said he was of the opinion that Brazil should not sell radioactive minerals to Iran, but emphasized the importance of commercial ties.
“Our relations with Iran are good for economic purposes.
They have oil and they buy commercial products from Brazil,†the parliamentarian explained. “We have nothing against Israel â€" on the contrary.â€
According to Oliveira, Brazil has better relations with Israel than with Iran because the South American nation is Christian, and as such shares values with the Jewish state.
He emphasized that Israel was the only true democracy in the Middle East and had freedom of religion and expression, like in his own country.
“Brazil is trying to maintain balance in its foreign policies in the Middle East,†he stated.
“The issues are complex and Brazil is unable to understand the problems in the region.
We just want good relations and an absence of war.â€
Rather than sanction Iran, Oliveira suggested that democracies around the world work together to “create mechanisms controlling the development of nuclear weapons.†Ideally, those mechanisms would be coordinated by the UN.
“If we have a non-nuclear weapon zone in the Middle East we can guarantee the absence of war,†Oliveira posited. “If countries agree [not to develop nuclear weapons], we can start a period of peace, and dialog can move to other questions, like religious ones.â€
Suggest Brazilian MP: Iran ties don't mean we're anti-Israel - Jerusalem Post Articles Michigan State Highlights - Notre Dame FootballCheck out highlights from the Notre Dame Fighting Irish's 20-3 victory of the Michigan State Spartans. Courtesy of ABC.
0 comments:
Post a Comment