So, now it appears that the Democratic candidates will have only half the votes from Michigan and Florida. Does that represent they are only half the people the DNC thought they should be? The people voted fair and square. If those states chose to move up their primaries, the voters should not be disenfranchised into becoming Half-Voters each on account of their respective state's decision which the voters had no control over. How about each Democratic candidate sharing the White House and Presidency half and half, each one for two years if the Democrats win?

ABC News: Officials Say Fla., Mich. Delegates Will Get Half-Votes (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/wireStory?id=4969127)

Dear SkyGem

Rules are rules, and there were arrangements made prior to rescheduling the dates.
Next to that : does it matter? Face it : Obama won the race already several weeks ago.
What is important that you vote when it really counts : during the actual election for the next US president !
:)

Dear SkyGem

Rules are rules, and there were arrangements made prior to rescheduling the dates.
Next to that : does it matter? Face it : Obama won the race already several weeks ago.
What is important that you vote when it really counts : during the actual election for the next US president !
:)
Dear Credendovidis, I would just like for you to take that argument to Floridians and the people from Michigan and see if they agree with your advise and logic. :)

Hillary originally didn't want the Florida or Michigan delegates seated because she thought she wouldn't need them. Of course, however, knowing the score she became more than wiling to favor circumventing those same rules. Obama proposed seating one hundred percent based on half votes to the delegates for Florida, where he didn't even campaign, and in Michigan, where he was not even on the ballots. That was a great concession and kindness on his part. I'd also make note concerning Michigan, of the 19 or 27 DNC rules committee members that voted for the proposition they were actually made up of Obama supporters and about half of those were Clinton supporters. Yup! The Clinton supporters are turning to Obama backers and in spite of the hold out the few Clinton scorched earth screamers, the Democratic party showed signs of unity today, to the Republicans disappointment. It was a great day for the Obama campaign and the Democratic party. :)

I still say a better compromise would've been to count them as 3/5th a vote.
The mostly insignificant Rules Committee came out from obscurity ;put on their makeup for C-Span and showed that rules don't matter. So the question then begs to be asked;why have rules ?

Sen Carl Levin mentioned at the meeting yesterday that N.H. broke the rules this cycle also and are facing no consequences. 2004, the DNC Rules Committee decided that New Hampshire would go third in the primary schedule and the second spot would rotate . According to Levin, New Hampshire decided they would not abide by these rules, and scheduled their primary in the second position. 2006, the Rules Committee recommended New Hampshire hold their primary January 22,and Nevada take the number 2 spot January 19. New Hampshire decided it did not have to follow DNC recommendations .It was only then that Michigan decided to move up it's primary date. The Committee decided to punish Fla. And Michigan but NOT New Hampshire. They were inconsistent in their selective use of the rules.

I would say that the Dems almost assured that Fla. And Michigan electors cast their ballots for McCain in Nov. Good job from that party that says all votes should count (even dead people from Chicago but not military personel casting absentee ballots).

The net result of weak decision is that they have moved the goal posts again and that now Obama is further away from clinching. They have guaranteed a floor fight unless Madam Mimi San Fran Nan Pelosi stifles it at the convention.

Both Parties need to review their rules for 2012 .The “front-loaded” calendar needs to be eliminated .I also think primaries need to be closed to registered voters;no crossover. The Democrats need to abolish superdelegates, proportionality in delegate allocation, and need to establish clear unambiguous punishment for states that break the rules.I don't think that losing delegates is the wisest answer.

The Republicans have already adopted a blueprint for change. They met in April in one of those unreported events and adopted the "Ohio plan" . Smaller states will vote first, followed by groups of bigger states, whose position on the calendar would be rotated each election cycle.This will not be finalized until the Republican Convention so it could fall prey to those who want the election cycle for 2012 to begin in 2009.

If the Dems win Nov. 4, the Repubs maybe could contest the validity of the winning Dem candidate based on his/her unconstitutional selection as the nominee. Counting humans as a fraction is frowned upon. All men are created equal?
Or could they contest it after the convention and tie up the Dems for 2 months before the election?
A political party overruling a sovereign state legislature and disenfranchising American citizen voters is a really big deal, and may cost Dems a lot of votes for stupidity.

I would say that the Dems almost assured that Fla. and Michigan electors cast their ballots for McCain in Nov. Good job from that party that says all votes should count (even dead people from Chicago but not military personel casting absentee ballots).

The net result of weak decision is that they have moved the goal posts again and that now Obama is further away from clinching. They have guaranteed a floor fight unless Madam Mimi San Fran Nan Pelosi stifles it at the convention.


I disagree on several other things that you've opinionated here, but I'll touch upon the few glaring ones as I'm heading out the door for work this morning. First, actually it puts Obama closer to reaching delegate count needed simply because he was already closer to the finish line. That being said it's expected according to most news networks that undecided super-delegates will be making their minds up soon, perhaps as early as by June fourth. Secondly, Michigan will perhaps be a Democrat state in November, a good chance. I'm conceding Florida only because it appears to be a Republican state regardless ever since Jeb Bush manipulated voting standards, but maybe the people will figure it out come general election this time. Lastly, Clinton can't have a floor fight at the convention and speak out the other side of her mouth on party unity. Although the few remnants of scorched earth campaigners may want that and Hillary may even threaten, but she'd all but ruin her career. Which in my book has already become tarnished anyway.

If the Dems win Nov. 4, the Repubs maybe could contest the validity of the winning Dem candidate based on his/her unconstitutional selection as the nominee. Counting humans as a fraction is frowned upon. All men are created equal?
Or could they contest it after the convention and tie up the Dems for 2 months before the election?
A political party overruling a sovereign state legislature and disenfranchising American citizen voters is a really big deal, and may cost Dems a lot of votes for stupidity.

This was in court a week ago, coincidentally by a Hillary supporter, and the judge ruled the DNC is permitted by setting their own guidelines in their own party. Any persons, or state elections in this case, not following those rules are subject to penalty.

Rules for Democrats? Precedent? Common sense? You kidding? Why, the supreme court rules, of course. And in this instance, Obama gets delegates from Michigan when he was not even on the ballot. Talking about a fix. They're all siting in their lifeboat with a big leak, and they don't see it.

Hillary was for the rules before she was against them.

First we have to remember this is not an "election" the state did not even have to do a vote it could have done a caucus as other states did and not even do voting. I don't see anyone up in arms that those states don't even get to vote.

They also were given the chance to have a new election if they wished to pay for it, and they did decide it was better not to count the votes than to spend money.

And in the end with the ability of the super delegates, they take the real choice out of the peoples vote and put it into the hands of the party leadership anyway, They could have saved all the trouble and let the party pick the person to start with, since that is why and how it ends up anyway.

Hello Sky:

Yup. It looks like your guy McBush is going down in flames a second time... He's going to lose to a black man who has no church. That ought to fry your born again tookas.

excon

Hello Sky:

Yup. It looks like your guy McBush is going down in flames a second time.... He's gonna lose to a black man who has no church. That ought to fry your born again tookas.

excon

Ah, spoken like a true Torah-thumping Rabbi!

If the Dems win Nov. 4, the Repubs maybe could contest the validity of the winning Dem candidate based on his/her unconstitutional selection as the nominee. Counting humans as a fraction is frowned upon. All men are created equal?
Or could they contest it after the convention and tie up the Dems for 2 months before the election?
A political party overruling a sovereign state legislature and disenfranchising American citizen voters is a really big deal, and may cost Dems a lot of votes for stupidity.

First we have to remember this is not an "election" the state did not even have to do a vote it could have done a caucus as other states did and not even do voting. I don't see anyone up in arms that those states don't even get to vote.smearcase--
The Friar and I disagree about several things, but he's spot-on here. The Constitution is silent about the nominating process, so all this blather about "unconstitutional disenfranchisement" is just so much hyperbole designed to put "lipstick on a pig".

And of course it is funny that Hillary can't get all the votes on a ballot where she is the only one running

Michigan will perhaps be a Democrat state in November, a good chance.

Yes Bobby ;they demonstrated the wisdom of Solomon in splitting the votes in Michigan even though Obama got none in the primary. It showed the Dems for the hypocrites they are... set aside election results they don't like. Michigan white working class swing voters and Hillary supporters are certainly going to go Democrat after that!. not ! If this is a close election ,Obama will need Michigan . But now he and the Dems have spit in the eye of the Michigan voters .

Not only that ; had they stroked Evita it would have made no difference in the results ultimately but it would've given her a graceful exit .Now they have given her another reason to be defiant . She will take it to the convention floor simply because nothing but the top prize interests her.But now her ambition has a cause ;"democratic principles " .
HILLARY'S CRAZY CREW - New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/seven/06022008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/hillarys_crazy_crew_113510.htm?page=0)

BTW that was really classy the way they man-handled the Evita supporters Sat . When they tossed them out and closed the doors in their face .

yes Bobby ;they demonstrated the wisdom of Solomon in splitting the votes in Michigan even though Obama got none in the primary. It showed the Dems for the hypocrites they are ....set aside election results they don't like. Michigan white working class swing voters and Hillary supporters are certainly going to go Democrat after that!....not ! If this is a close election ,Obama will need Michigan . But now he and the Dems have spit in the eye of the Michigan voters .

Isn't the wisdom of Solomon, considering the FACT that Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan, better than turning a blind-eye to dictatorial styled results?? How about this? John McCain not having his name on ballots in the Michigan come general election and we count the votes as is? Surprisingly you seem to be all for it. Michigan had there eyes spit in by George Bush the past two terms so come general election the Democrats will dry those eyes. :)





Not only that ; had they stroked Evita it would have made no difference in the results ultimately but it would've given her a graceful exit .Now they have given her another reason to be defiant . She will take it to the convention floor simply because nothing but the top prize interests her.But now her ambition has a cause ;"democratic principles " .
HILLARY'S CRAZY CREW - New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/seven/06022008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/hillarys_crazy_crew_113510.htm?page=0)

She'll effectivly lose that argument when the super-delegates chime in soon.

She'll effectivly lose that argument when the super-delegates chime in soon.

More Democrat "democracy " in action. Her new campaign ads point out her record 17 million votes in this nominating season . Her supporters will not be satisfied with the notion that Party elites will decide the nomination over the will of the primary and caucus voters. I see a repeat of 1980 Kennedy all over this .

all this blather about "unconstitutional disenfranchisement" is just so much hyperbole designed to put "lipstick on a pig"

Wow, so just because it's a primary it doesn't matter if their vote doesn't count? I'd be pi$$ed if my vote didn't count in ANY election. "Lipstick on a pig!" was exactly what one of the attendees thought (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91033479&ft=1&f=1001) of the outcome.

I think it's hilarious, after 7 years of people complaining Bush stole the 2000 election in the ultimate "disenfranchisement," that the Dems are giving half votes and estimating delegates.

If they broke the rules then I reckon they're lucky to be even getting half a vote. Seems pretty simple to me!

Or is all this carry on just another act in this marathon theatre production called a presidential election? Must be! Speilberg & Lucas would be proud!

If they broke the rules then i reckon they're lucky to be even getting half a vote.
Hell yes they're lucky. The "pig" that they're trying to pretty up is that Hillary supported the sanctions on Michigan and Florida when she thought they wouldn't matter, but she left her name on the ballot, did "fundraising" that was actually thinly disguised campaigning, which she had pledged not to do, and as soon as she saw she needed their delegates, all of a sudden it's "disenfranchisement" like in Zimbabwe. Give me a break. Her "principles" amount to nothing more than "win at any cost".

Wow, so just because it's a primary it doesn't matter if their vote doesn't count? I'd be pi$$ed if my vote didn't count in ANY election. "Lipstick on a pig!" was exactly what one of the attendees thought (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91033479&ft=1&f=1001) of the outcome.

I think it's hilarious, after 7 years of people complaining Bush stole the 2000 election in the ultimate "disenfranchisement," that the Dems are giving half votes and estimating delegates.


I think an alien took over Steve's body as he made it painfully clear here that rules and guidelines are to be disregarded, along with championing actions absent of penalty. Many of these same Republicans that didn't want the Florida vote count continued in 2000, now want the DNC to abandon all discipline in favor of chaos and loose perimeters.

I think an alien took over Steve's body as he made it painfully clear here that rules and guidelines are to be disregarded, along with championing actions absent of penalty. Many of these same Republicans that didn't want the Florida vote count continued in 2000, now want the DNC to abandon all discipline in favor of chaos and loose perimeters.

Bobby, I think if you'll look back a ways you'll see I supported their rules long before all this broke out. Darned if facts don't keep getting in the way of semi-good insult :)

Personally, I don't care what you guys do in the primaries, I'm just having a blast watching and stoking the fire. After seven years of unhinged Democratic screams that Bush stole the 2000 election, the Supreme Court, Bush and Florida "disenfranchised voters," that Gore won the popular vote (he didn't) and that's how we should decide an election (like Hillary winning the popular vote in Texas but Obama getting more delegates), etc. I'm more than amused watching all those arguments get tossed aside - or turned inside out or whatever you guys are doing. But then, I've long been amused by watching the Dems constantly move the goal posts. :D

If they broke the rules then i reckon they're lucky to be even getting half a vote. Seems pretty simple to me!!

Or is all this carry on just another act in this marathon theatre production called an presidential election?? Must be!! Speilberg & Lucas would be proud!!

This just act 487 on the Democrat's side, and I must say they're putting on a splendid show :).

I can't wait for the encore when the apparent real enemies go after one another.

This whole episode really has made Hillary look a fool though!

I can't wait for the encore when the apparent real enemies go after one another.

This whole episode really has made Hillary look a fool though!

True, but she's also had plenty of help from her hubby, the media and her fellow Dems.

Bobby, I think if you'll look back a ways you'll see I supported their rules long before all this broke out. Darned if facts don't keep getting in the way of semi-good insult :)

Like your inconsistency? That would be a fact. I care what they do in the primaries because the rules are in place, now you don't. I wonder how that works outside politics?


I'm just having a blast watching and stoking the fire.


You've tried to stoke a fire with wet wood. General election campaigning has become nothing but one big game for the Republican preadolescent party, you guys really shouldn't follow in Hillary's footsteps. :rolleyes:

Like your inconsistency? That would be a fact. I care what they do in the primaries because the rules are in place, now you don't. I wonder how that works outside politics?

What inconsistency? I said I supported the rules before and I still do... especially if it keeps making the Dems look foolish. But, that doesn't stop me from poking them in the eye over their evolving standards. :D


You've tried to stoke a fire with wet wood. General election campaigning has become nothing but one big game for the Republican preadolescent party, you guys really shouldn't follow in Hillary's footsteps. :rolleyes:

With openings like this what can you expect?

http://www.truckerphoto.com/Kerry-Dukakis.jpg

What inconsistency? I said I supported the rules before and I still do...especially if it keeps making the Dems look foolish. But, that doesn't stop me from poking them in the eye over their evolving standards. :D



So let me get this straight. You are for the rules, but want to impress on people that they shouldn't be followed? :eek:




With openings like this what can you expect?


Not much anymore. Geezus Steve, you have nothing better to do? Can't that wife give you a chore or two to do around the house? :)

So let me get this straight. You are for the rules, but want to impress on people that they shouldn't be followed? :eek:

You're getting pretty good at this spin stuff, Bobby but I don't recall ever telling the Dems to break the rules. Just pointing out the obvious, how the left changes the "rules" to suit the occasion. :D


Not much anymore. Geezus Steve, you have nothing better to do? Can't that wife give you a chore or two to do around the house? :)

Well, fantasy football season is not here yet so I got to have fun somewhere. Mocking politicians is a suitable substitute for now.

Well, fantasy football season is not here yet so I gotta have fun somewhere. Mocking politicians is a suitable substitute for now.That's quite a life you've carved out for yourself.

You're getting pretty good at this spin stuff, Bobby but I don't recall ever telling the Dems to break the rules. Just pointing out the obvious, how the left changes the "rules" to suit the occasion. :D

Huh? You're the one that admitted to "stoking the fire." BTW the DNC didn't change the rules for moving up their primary dates. In fact the DNC proceeded with penalties for actions with lenient resolve at Obama's request.




Well, fantasy football season is not here yet so I gotta have fun somewhere. Mocking politicians is a suitable substitute for now.

Yup! I call it, "Fantasy Republican Politics," as usual. ;)

That's quite a life you've carved out for yourself.

Nothing wrong with little break from work, cooking for my wife, gardening, reading, playing with the dogs, church, home repairs and improvements, band practice...

Huh?! You're the one that admitted to "stoking the fire." BTW the DNC didn't change the rules for moving up their primary dates. In fact the DNC proceeded with penalties for actions with lenient resolve at Obama's request.

Clearly from my first post on this, the "rules" I was referring to in stoking the fire is the ever evolving, contradictory code the left lives by - not the DNC rules.

Clearly from my first post on this, the "rules" I was referring to in stoking the fire is the ever evolving contradictory code the left lives by
I take it you mean by comparison and in contrast to the unalterably rigid contradictory code the right lives by.

I take it you mean by comparison and in contrast to the unalterably rigid contradictory code the right lives by.

I gave examples, where are yours?

Wow, so just because it's a primary it doesn't matter if their vote doesn't count? I'd be pi$$ed if my vote didn't count in ANY election. "Lipstick on a pig!" was exactly what one of the attendees thought (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91033479&ft=1&f=1001) of the outcome.

I think it's hilarious, after 7 years of people complaining Bush stole the 2000 election in the ultimate "disenfranchisement," that the Dems are giving half votes and estimating delegates.

That's an example: being "pi$$ed???" All 50 States in the Democratic primaries were DNC warned of due process resulting in possible penalty for actions. In 2000 it was hanging chads, other voting irregularities, and completely stopping a vote re-count in a general election, thanks to Republicans. Did Jeb and G.W. Bush warn 50 States that they were going to penalize the nation for wanting a re-count due to Florida's voting irregularities?? Nope! Had we only knew! Instead it took a split vote count in the Supreme Court to try and reform the circus.



Clearly from my first post on this, the "rules" I was referring to in stoking the fire is the ever evolving, contradictory code the left lives by - not the DNC rules.

Uh-huh! I see that your code is about good as your example. Not good "Steve," not good.

That's an example: being "pi$$ed???" All 50 States in the Democratic primaries were DNC warned of due process resulting in possible penalty for actions. In 2000 it was hanging chads, other voting irregularities, and completely stopping a vote re-count in a general election, thanks to Republicans. Did Jeb and G.W. Bush warn 50 States that he was going to penalize the nation for wanting a re-count due to Florida's voting irregularities??? Nope! Had we only knew! Instead it took a split vote count in the Supreme Court to try and reform the circus.

You are a funny guy, Bobby. Follow me here, the examples were in this post (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/only-half-votes-count-221913-post1072820.html#post1072820), not the one you selected.

After seven years of unhinged Democratic screams that Bush stole the 2000 election, the Supreme Court, Bush and Florida "disenfranchised voters," that Gore won the popular vote (he didn't) and that's how we should decide an election (like Hillary winning the popular vote in Texas but Obama getting more delegates), etc., I'm more than amused watching all those arguments get tossed aside - or turned inside out or whatever you guys are doing.

I agree, the DNC made the rules and warned the two states so you guys have to live by them - or not, or fight about it or take it to court (as is the custom) or whatever. But do you not see the delicious irony in all those years of good progressives everywhere whining about the 2000 election (to this day), the 'disenfranchisement' era, the cries to eliminate the electoral college and switch to a popular vote - while the Dems are 'disenfranchising' voters in Florida and Michigan, ignoring the popular vote (as in Texas), estimating delegates, giving half votes - and fighting amongst yourselves about it?

And by the way, it was Gore that wanted the recount, in 4 counties.

You are a funny guy, Bobby. Follow me here, the examples were in this post (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/only-half-votes-count-221913-post1072820.html#post1072820), not the one you selected.

After seven years of unhinged Democratic screams that Bush stole the 2000 election, the Supreme Court, Bush and Florida "disenfranchised voters," that Gore won the popular vote (he didn't) and that's how we should decide an election (like Hillary winning the popular vote in Texas but Obama getting more delegates), etc., I'm more than amused watching all those arguments get tossed aside - or turned inside out or whatever you guys are doing.

I agree, the DNC made the rules and warned the two states so you guys have to live by them - or not, or fight about it or take it to court (as is the custom) or whatever. But do you not see the delicious irony in all those years of good progressives everywhere whining about the 2000 election (to this day), the 'disenfranchisement' era, the cries to eliminate the electoral college and switch to a popular vote - while the Dems are 'disenfranchising' voters in Florida and Michigan, ignoring the popular vote (as in Texas), estimating delegates, giving half votes - and fighting amongst yourselves about it?


That was an example?? LOL! Well! What a surprise? You're going down another failed argument path. Obama actually has the popular vote lead and that includes the fact he only received uncommitted popular votes for Michigan being that his name was not even on the ballot. BTW if you fail to obey the law and have to pay the penalty for your actions later, whose to blame?? Did the police disenfranchise you from being law abiding, or did you do that to yourself??


Despite Hillary's poor math skills, and the Fox Networks blundering misjudgments, here's the actual populace vote count with a total count having Obama ahead, albeit barley. BTW, as of late this afternoon, Barack Obama received enough delegates that he now has earned the nomination fairly! Arguments now concerning the Democratic chosen nominee, are in effect, futile.

RealClearPolitics - 2008 Elections - Democratic Vote Count (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html)


And by the way, it was Gore that wanted the recount, in 4 counties.


Nope! It was Gore being supported by a majority of the Democratic public that was being opposed by Bush with Republicans support, on a re-count, concerning four counties, in Florida.:)

CNN.com - Bush camp tries to halt Florida recounts - December 8, 2000 (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/08/president.election/)

Oh come on, Bobby. Get over 2000! How many times did they recount? Time was running out. If the Dems had their way we would have gotten to January without a winner. And I seem to remember that every time they recounted, G. Bush gained a few more votes! A month more and he might have had a landslide!

Oh come on, Bobby. Get over 2000! How many times did they recount? Time was running out. If the Dems had their way we would have gotten to January without a winner. And I seem to remember that every time they recounted, G. Bush gained a few more votes! A month more and he might have had a landslide!


Read for yourself, "Galveston," and then chastise your fellow Republican, not me. I only shared the facts of that 2000 election after Steve brought the subject up. Personally I think if there's a way to screw up an election, it will happen in Florida regardless of Democrat or Republican. Ever since Jeb Bush they've become known for election screw-ups, period.

Hello Sky:

I guess half was enough.

excon

I would hate to have to rehash this again .But an independent panel of media did an extensive recount of ALL Fla ballots and found that Bush had even a greater margin of victory in 2000. It was Gore ;trying to change the rules via court challenges ,and the irresponsible actions of the Fla. Supreme Court,that created all the confusion.

That was an example?? LOL! Well! What a surprise? You're going down another failed argument path. Obama actually has the popular vote lead and that includes the fact he only received uncommitted popular votes for Michigan being that his name was not even on the ballot. BTW if you fail to obey the law and have to pay the penalty for your actions later, whose to blame?? Did the police disenfranchise you from being law abiding, or did you do that to yourself??

Follow me again here Bobby, my examples had less to do with actual results - overall or otherwise - laws or rules than attitudes, behavior and stated principles. Although, fact is Hillary won the popular vote in Texas (http://blogs.chron.com/texaspolitics/archives/2008/03/despite_popular.html) but received fewer delegates. How many Obama and winner-take-all supporters came out and complained?


Nope! It was Gore being supported by a majority of the Democratic public that was being opposed by Bush with Republicans support, on a re-count, concerning four counties, in Florida.:)

Your words were "Did Jeb and G.W. Bush warn 50 States that they was going to penalize the nation for wanting a re-count due to Florida's voting irregularities???"

I said it was Gore that asked for a recount (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,998618,00.html) in in Volusia, Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties. The article you cite also says it was "Gore's petition to overturn the certification of Florida's election results and manually recount [all] the ballots." It was Gore that wanted to skirt Florida law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore#Background)which "required all counties to certify their election returns to the Florida Secretary of State within seven days of the election." It was Gore who "for the first time in modern history...[resorted] to lawsuits to try to overturn the outcome of an election for president." Bush asked the courts to follow Florida law nearly a month after Florida's statutory deadline, so do you support the law or not?

Hello:

As in most elections, the winner takes the post, while the losers demand a recount and complain about the rules. Certainly, you Republicans would agree, the guy who is anointed, irrespective of the votes or the rules or the complaints, IS the guy who is anointed...

Therefore, Obama IS the anointed, and he's going to trounce Grampy McSame.

excon

Follow me again here Bobby, my examples had less to do with actual results - overall or otherwise - laws or rules than attitudes, behavior and stated principles. Although, fact is Hillary won the popular vote in Texas (http://blogs.chron.com/texaspolitics/archives/2008/03/despite_popular.html) but received fewer delegates. How many Obama and winner-take-all supporters came out and complained?

Steve, wake-up. You're sweating to death in example heat... again. The delegates are not award by whole state results, but by district. Therefore the votes counted for district populace are in effect accurate proportion. Neither Hillary or Obama were naïve to those rules, why are you?



I said it was Gore that asked for a recount (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,998618,00.html) in in Volusia, Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties. The article you cite also says it was "Gore's petition to overturn the certification of Florida's election results and manually recount [all] the ballots." It was Gore that wanted to skirt Florida law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore#Background)which "required all counties to certify their election returns to the Florida Secretary of State within seven days of the election." It was Gore who "for the first time in modern history...[resorted] to lawsuits to try to overturn the outcome of an election for president." Bush asked the courts to follow Florida law nearly a month after Florida's statutory deadline, so do you support the law or not?

The article was from CNN and was 100% accurate for that date. BTW you do realize that your wikipedia is rated only 90% of the time accurate. You're arguing with yourself here. Re-read the facts of what I stated after you brought the subject up. I said Gore with Democrat support vs Bush with Republican support... and that Gore wanted a re-count and Bush wanted to it stopped. There were irregularities. Chads hanging and missed counts are called irregularities. Period. My only implication is that Florida has tendency to screw-up any election. Gov. Crist was on media record just yesterday saying that he has it all fixed this time. We can only hope!

Steve, wake-up. You're sweating to death in example heat... again. The delegates are not award by whole state results, but by district. Therefore the votes counted for district populace are in effect accurate proportion. Neither Hillary or Obama were naïve to those rules, why are you?

Bobby, I'm wide awake today and not naïve. You're missing the point. I said it had lees to do with actual results, rules and laws but with attitudes, behavior and stated principles. It is about what I've heard, read and watched the left say over the last 7 years being disregarded over partisan politics - exactly what they've whined about for all that time. It's the hypocrisy - not the rules.


The article was from CNN and was 100% accurate for that date. BTW you do realize that your wikipedia is rated only 90% of the time accurate.

Yes the article was accurate, that's why I cited it also. I don't rely Wikipedia as a rock solid source, but the portion I cited is also accurate, supported by the CNN article you cited.


You're arguing with yourself here. Re-read the facts of what I stated after you brought the subject up. I said Gore with Democrat support vs Bush with Republican support... and that Gore wanted a re-count and Bush wanted to it stopped. There were irregularities. Chads hanging and missed counts are called irregularities. Period.

Hey buddy, I must have re-read it because I copied and pasted YOUR quote, lol.


My only implication is that Florida has tendency to screw-up any election. Gov. Crist was on media record just yesterday saying that he has it all fixed this time. We can only hope!

Look, I hope so too. I hope it's fixed everywhere and I hope the parties don't intimidate voters, have lawyers on call in every precinct, and I wish the candidates and their minions would stop playing this game of personal destruction. But until they do, I'm going to fight back ;)

Bobby, I'm wide awake today and not naive. You're missing the point. I said it had lees to do with actual results, rules and laws but with attitudes, behavior and stated principles. It is about what I've heard, read and watched the left say over the last 7 years being disregarded over partisan politics - exactly what they've whined about for all that time. It's the hypocrisy - not the rules.


I went through three of your exampled arguments and each time there was an excuse. Actually the first time you detoured and said it was not one of your examples. Yet you've gone right back to the same argument and meanwhile admitted your only here to flame the fires. I really shouldn't waste my time on such adolescence. The guidelines of the DNC 2008 were already in place. Yeah I know you want to avoid rules and speak on reaction. But it took actions first and that was breaking rules. BTW since you keep bring up the general election Florida 2000 re-counts, it was so questionable that it took a spilt-vote majority in the Supreme court to sort out, unlike the Dem primary 2008. As for reaction on the recent DNC rulings, the few hanging on Hillaryettes were not being hypocritical, just whiners. Hillary, and the other hand is a hypocrite and I can give concrete examples. :cool:


Yes the article was accurate, that's why I cited it also. I don't rely Wikipedia as a rock solid source, but the portion I cited is also accurate, supported by the CNN article you cited.;)

Damn right what I was cited was accurate. Another fruitless argument vaporized. Yippee! :rolleyes:




Hey buddy, I must have re-read it because I copied and pasted YOUR quote, lol.

And I'll add the word, "comprehend," next time. :eek:




Look, I hope so too. I hope it's fixed everywhere and I hope the parties don't intimidate voters, have lawyers on call in every precinct, and I wish the candidates and their minions would stop playing this game of personal destruction. But until they do, I'm going to fight back ;)

You mean the scorched earth campaigning of the Hillary Clinton?? Personally I think Gov Crist's word of confidence that he will have the State of Florida provide a smooth general election is even less ensuring in light of the fact of they've already showed disobedience moving the primary vote date up. Have they learned yet?? I'm going to keep fighting ignorance. ;)!

I went through three of your exampled arguments and each time there was an excuse. Actually the first time you detoured and said it was not one of your examples. Yet you've gone right back to the same argument and meanwhile admitted your only here to flame the fires. I really shouldn't waste my time on such adolescence.

Hey man, there is no excuse in any of my posts, I've been entirely consistent while you've detoured onto paths with no road signs leading there. Since you mentioned the word adolescent I'll just say it this way, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy now being revealed after the past 7 1/2 years of adolescent anti-Bush behavior. Now they're projecting their unhinged hatred of Bush onto McCain using the same adolescent tactics. The best they can come up with against McCain is he's old, a misquoted "100 year" remark, an unsubstantiated affair and painting him as a Bush clone based on a very select number of votes. You can't be serious.

Hey man, there is no excuse in any of my posts, I've been entirely consistent while you've detoured onto paths with no road signs leading there. Since you mentioned the word adolescent I'll just say it this way, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy now being revealed after the past 7 1/2 years of adolescent anti-Bush behavior. Now they're projecting their unhinged hatred of Bush onto McCain using the same adolescent tactics. The best they can come up with against McCain is he's old, a misquoted "100 year" remark, an unsubstantiated affair and painting him as a Bush clone based on a very select number of votes. You can't be serious.

This coming from the person that admits being here to flame the fires? Steve, everybody with a half of education knows I present my views very thoroughly and straight forward. The flies are already gathered around the dead horse so bring your little flickering match to the next to subject. Thank you.

This coming from the person that admits being here to flame the fires?! Steve, everybody with a half of education knows I present my views very thoroughly and straight forward. The flies are already gathered around the dead horse so bring your little flickering match to the next to subject. Thank you.

Hey bub, I've already changed the subject. You're taking some things way too literally here. I said I'm just having a blast watching and stoking the fire - that the Democrats started on the subject of your primaries, I never said I was "only here to flame the fires." I've admitted numerous times I'm not a debater, but my research is thorough. So, moving on...

Pacman had his first practice yesterday and looked good they said. Maybe he'll keep his nose clean and hit the field for the first game.

Dear Credendovidis, I would just like for you to take that argument to Floridians and the people from Michigan and see if they agree with your advise and logic. :)

The citizens of Florida and Michigan should be furious... with their state leaders who played chicken with the DNC rules and then were appalled and aghast when it hit the fan.

If you set rules and a child disobeys it, and then throws a hissy fit because they are being punished... well, it means there's a system in place that is to be followed.

Granted, coming from the state of Iowa, the were-first-so-nah-nah state, I don't get the current system. Makes no sense. Iowa first. Whatever. Nice for the economy every 4 years, but other than that, it's a dumb system (who first and when) and needs revamped. That said... a system should be in place... is in place... and when rules are violated, its just using your backbone to apply punishment.

So I'm sick of hearing the whining about counting the Michigan and Florida voters. They deserved to be heard. They would have been heard... do you really thing those two states wouldn't have been big wins for either candidate even late in the game?

As it is, their leaders screwed up royally. The voters shouldn't be furious with the dnc and dean. It should be rage at in state leaders who played chicken and got egg on their face.

If our founding fathers could only see us now.

If our founding fathers could only see us now.Hello r:

If they did, they'd love it. Democracy is messy. It's not nice and neat. People get dinged. But, it's working exactly like it was designed to do. Frankly, I haven't enjoyed a campaign this much since 1968.

excon

Rodandy . I encourage you to read up on the politics of the 1792-1800 period. We are novices compared to how they played the game.

Yes indeed they would love it ;they would love the fact that the populace was engaged and fired up full of passion about the issues of the day.

R12-

I don't think having a black man nominated and running for president would had set well with them. Hundreds of years later, even today, having our first black nominee doesn't set well with some of the public.

Thomas Jefferson thought the American Revolution was the first in a series. He figured that once the freedom genie was out of the bottle, "the people" wouldn't put up with the sort of crap we seem willing to put up with and every 20-30 years, there would be another
Revolution. He greatly underestimated the coming success of the experiment called the United States and the citizen's willingness to bend their ideals if their lives were sufficiently comfortable.

I think our founding father's would be happy that the experiment has been a success, but pissed that we've turned into a bunch of spoiled fatcats who allow our elected leaders (sic) to get away with the crap they do.

Yes. Democracy is dam_ messy. It is not for sissys.

I think our founding father's would be happy that the experiment has been a success, but pissed that we've turned into a bunch of spoiled fatcats who allow our elected leaders (sic) to get away with the crap they do.

Yes. Democracy is dam_ messy. It is not for sissys.

Pssst... I agree. I've wanted to take a bat to politicians kneecaps on several occasions.

I can remember from history, in Illinois state senate, during the days of Abe Lincoln, if there was to be a vote on something they did not want passed, some members would jump out of the meeting hall, even though the windows, so there would not be enough members present to call for a vote. Politics were always a fight, it was never set up for a majority vote of the people for almost anything, esp at the national level.
IE> as in the actual election, we do understand the EC elects the president, the popular vote does not. Just like the idea of the super delegates, it is all designed to protect the people being elected from the will of the people,

Rodandy
To the founders generation revolution included non-violent departures from the past. But I don't think that is what Jefferson meant because he used rhetoric about the tree of liberty being nourished in blood.
The founders understanding what Jefferson was saying, (who's views were in my opinion often contradictory and extreme compared to most of the founders), installed the mechanisim for "revolutionary change" into the framework of the Constitution. These include the amending process and a process for new Constitutional conventions.

From the Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Jefferson wrote these words and the founders as I said added the means for change in the framework of the Constitution. The thing to remember about Jefferson is that he was an enthusiastic supporter of the excesses of the French Revolution .History showed that revolution to be a failure ;chaos reigned until a dictator restored order.

As for a new American Revolution;I would suggest that there have been elections in the country that were revolutionary (Jackson, Lincoln ,FDR) .

Those folks who "voted fair and square" knew beforehand that their votes were likely to be discounted. The states violated the rules. Whether the rule was justified is another matter. I guess I see, from a monetary standpoint, why so many seem to want the primaries over with in a hurry, but I'd like the primary season to hang around longer. Too quickly and lesser known candidates stay that way. I wanted Edwards, but the speed by which primaries flew by didn't give him enough chance to gain any momentum. I'm also sure there are other want to be candidates who never even got a chance. Extending the primary season, ultimately, gives us more options and may reduce the ever-growing problem of not really having a multi-party system - or even a real 2-party one...

but I'd like the primary season to hang around longer. Too quickly and lesser known candidates stay that way.

Agree. The rush to pick a candidate quickly without proper vetting is a recipe for disaster. As it is ;no one really examined Obama until it was too late .

agree. The rush to pick a candidate quickly without proper vetting is a recipe for disaster. As it is ;no one really examined Obama until it was too late .


You should had seen the expression on my face when Dubya was elected, not once, but twice. :eek: Some people are slow learners.