I cant belive the dems are going to F it up.. AGAIN!

C

Chapdog

Abreast of the situations
its like they cant help themselves.

This primary is a mess. neither can win by vote at this point.
Spending millions on attacking each other
they want to Re-DO in Florida and Michigan - but nobody wants to pay
hillarys got the entire dem party by the balls in attempt to coup power.

I cant help but to shake my head.. and i think ALLOT more will be shaking there heads if this really does go on and on and on for months.
 
Lighten up. It's called "democracy"; it ain't always pretty. Frankly, there isn't a heck of a lot the national party can do to prevent 2 popular candidates from splitting the vote. They tried to front-load the thing, but that didn't work, clearly.

Hillary has no one by the balls; Obama will end up with more elected delegates AND more superdelegates in the end, barring a meltdown on his part. There will be no backroom shenanigans, no power-broker deals behind closed doors. A spirited primary will have been waged between 2 strong candidates, and the best one will end up winning.

That's how it's supposed to work, actually...
 
Chapdog said:
its like they cant help themselves.

This primary is a mess. neither can win by vote at this point.
Spending millions on attacking each other
they want to Re-DO in Florida and Michigan - but nobody wants to pay
hillarys got the entire dem party by the balls in attempt to coup power.

I cant help but to shake my head.. and i think ALLOT more will be shaking there heads if this really does go on and on and on for months.
Click to expand...

I can't see anything wrong with what they are doing. I applaud the effort.

:hand:
 
Chapdog said:
its like they cant help themselves.

This primary is a mess. neither can win by vote at this point.
Spending millions on attacking each other
they want to Re-DO in Florida and Michigan - but nobody wants to pay
hillarys got the entire dem party by the balls in attempt to coup power.

I cant help but to shake my head.. and i think ALLOT more will be shaking there heads if this really does go on and on and on for months.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I shake my head all the time, but not about this. I shake my head about things like: How could George W. Bush ever become president (twice)? :rolleyes: Why do we still have the electoral college? Why do we hold primaries, when I'd still vote for Huckebee in the general election? Why do we import more than we export? Why do we outsource jobs? Why does our government neglect it's own people? And the list goes on, and on, and on......
 
Sir Galahad said:
Yeah, I shake my head all the time, but not about this. I shake my head about things like: How could George W. Bush ever become president (twice)? :rolleyes: Why do we still have the electoral college? Why do we hold primaries, when I'd still vote for Huckebee in the general election? Why do we import more than we export? Why do we outsource jobs? Why does our government neglect it's own people? And the list goes on, and on, and on......
Click to expand...

It's called controlling the process and all available option so our leaders can be narrowed down to people who all have the same basic views, fascist views.
 
Democracy probably shouldn't be quite as messy after 300 years, however. Eventually Democracy should run along pretty smoothly, don't you think?
 
Sir Galahad said:
Yeah, I shake my head all the time, but not about this. I shake my head about things like: How could George W. Bush ever become president (twice)? :rolleyes: Why do we still have the electoral college? Why do we hold primaries, when I'd still vote for Huckebee in the general election? Why do we import more than we export? Why do we outsource jobs? Why does our government neglect it's own people? And the list goes on, and on, and on......
Click to expand...

Are you a fan of Jadakiss?
 
gonzojournals said:
Democracy probably shouldn't be quite as messy after 300 years, however. Eventually Democracy should run along pretty smoothly, don't you think?
Click to expand...

What's your definition of "smooth"?

Do you consider a lengthy, spirited contest between 2 strong candidates, that actually involves more states, to be "un-smooth" democracy?

Is it smoother if it's wrapped up by New Hampshire?
 
Onceler said:
What's your definition of "smooth"?

Do you consider a lengthy, spirited contest between 2 strong candidates, that actually involves more states, to be "un-smooth" democracy?

Is it smoother if it's wrapped up by New Hampshire?
Click to expand...

I consider two candidates obsessed with appearing as an "alternative" to the scary ol' Republicans to conduct themselves with more dignity and humility if they really want to convince me of their bullshit.

But I don't expect you to agree with me, as you are much too lodged in the Democratic Party's ass to use your brain.

Also, I'm not surprised at all that the Democrats have managed to screw up an election.
 
gonzojournals said:
I consider two candidates obsessed with appearing as an "alternative" to the scary ol' Republicans to conduct themselves with more dignity and humility if they really want to convince me of their bullshit.

But I don't expect you to agree with me, as you are much too lodged in the Democratic Party's ass to use your brain.

Also, I'm not surprised at all that the Democrats have managed to screw up an election.
Click to expand...


Pretty non-sensical, and I'm hardly beholden to the Dem party.

You're saying you have a problem with how the candidates are presenting themselves; that really has nothing to do with why you don't see the current process as being "smooth."

I was wondering if you thought it would be more smooth if Iowa & NH decided who the nominee was, as they usually do? That's the one I was curious about. Not what you think of the current crop of nominees & the state of their humility.
 
Onceler said:
Pretty non-sensical, and I'm hardly beholden to the Dem party.
Click to expand...
Which is, oddly enough, what every Democrat on this board says...yet I would bet that you and the others would vote Democrat even if they ran Adolf Hitler.

You're saying you have a problem with how the candidates are presenting themselves; that really has nothing to do with why you don't see the current process as being "smooth."
Click to expand...
I don't see the current process as smooth because they are having more fun with their respective egos than with the actual election. And don't give me that bullshit about how happy you are that "Democracy is working" because the primary is going to be drawn out to every last state--- you just don't want to face the truth that this is a bad situation.

I was wondering if you thought it would be more smooth if Iowa & NH decided who the nominee was, as they usually do? That's the one I was curious about. Not what you think of the current crop of nominees & the state of their humility.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think a decisive win would be much better than polarising an entire party for the sake of egos-- but then again, the Democratic Party is not my Party, and they are free to do what they want.
 
Nah; I've already posted, about 100 times, that I won't vote for Hillary, under any circumstances whatsoever. Since she's a notch above Hitler, you're a little off there.

As an Obama supporter, the way the process is unfolding concerns me, because it could potentially weaken him. As a citizen, I do think it's pretty exciting that states that have never had a voice in the nominating process suddenly matter.

And no one knows what happens with this kind of dynamic, because we haven't experienced anything that is precisely like these conditions. Limbaugh could be woefully wrong; the fact that something like the OH primary mattered for the 1st time might very well change the outcome of that state in a way that is favorable to Democrats. They certainly trounced the GOP on turnout for a primary, in a way that they haven't in the past.

I don't know, and you don't either. Regardless, it's democracy, and it's idiotic to say that, after 300 years, we should have found a way to have Iowa & NH appoint the nominee every time, so the process could be more smooth. Very idiotic.
 
Sir Galahad said:
I have no idea who that is? Sounds like a name of an alien character or rapper...... at least both are similar.
Click to expand...

Ah, you got it. He's a rapper. He has a (sort of) hit song called "Why" and he basically listed off a bunch of questions like you did. I thought maybe you were playing off that.
 
cawacko said:
Ah, you got it. He's a rapper. He has a (sort of) hit song called "Why" and he basically listed off a bunch of questions like you did. I thought maybe you were playing off that.
Click to expand...

Interesting! However, I was just being me. I am one who enjoys answering questions with questions. ;)
 
1) It aint over yet.
2) As far as I am conserned we have already won, we forced the Repugs to nominate the best Republican there is for president.

Even if McCain wins he is a 1000 % better than Bush ever was.
 
Onceler said:
Lighten up. It's called "democracy"; it ain't always pretty. Frankly, there isn't a heck of a lot the national party can do to prevent 2 popular candidates from splitting the vote. They tried to front-load the thing, but that didn't work, clearly.

Hillary has no one by the balls; Obama will end up with more elected delegates AND more superdelegates in the end, barring a meltdown on his part. There will be no backroom shenanigans, no power-broker deals behind closed doors. A spirited primary will have been waged between 2 strong candidates, and the best one will end up winning.

That's how it's supposed to work, actually...
Click to expand...


sure, voting twice, super-delegates deciding the outcome, out of state Obama operatives stealing Clinton's supporters sheet, Clinton supporters stealing the Obama supporter sheet, Democracy is clearly thriving in the Democrat party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top