Michigan Democratic Primary Rules-Certified Vote Changed

Desh said:
we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role

That was from her mouth or campaign at least. Think of fwhat would have happened if there was no date before they were allowed to hold their primaries?

50 states would have been vying to be the first to vote.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

Is there any ambiguity about WHEN Clinton started caring about "every vote should count?"
 
KingRaw! said:
blackascoal where do you stand on abortion? Pro-life/God or Pro-death/Hitler?
Click to expand...

I believe in a womans right to choose. Pro-life is better defined as pro-UNBORN-life, once born, pro-lifers don't give a damn about that life.

I believe that science, mathematics, and intelligence are the "holy trinity", not gods, myths, or fairy tales.

The death penalty is barbarism .. something we're good at.
 
Doesn't anyone pay attention to my obviously popular feuds?!! Give me a sec.


From Good Luck


There was a time when open racism was under the same circumstances we see today with the unborn. Using dehumanizing excuses, racism was supported by law (jim crow, "equal but separate" etc.) Those laws were supported by many, and opposed by what STARTED as a minority, but eventually grew as people came to realize the injustice of those laws. The issue was discussed (though not through the impersonal medium we have here) and very few - at first - were willing to change their minds.


We have made significant progress since those days of civil rights marches. Though we have some significant problems with the issue of racism, the injustice of racism has been recognized, and the process of rooting out its evils is still making advances.


Today we have a similar situation with the unborn. The unborn have been deliberately and systematically dehumanized to justify the free and open killing of them. The laws that allow it are supported by many, and (currently) opposed by a significant minority who see and understand the injustice of dehumanizing any group of humans for the purpose of treating them with less humanity than we insist we treat livestock used for food. The issue is discussed, and few are willing to change their minds, especially those who support the "right" to kill unborn children. To change one's mind from supporting this disgusting practice would require one to admit what it is they actually support.


But, I have confidence that like the issue of racism, justice will eventually win out over ignorance and selfishness, and the unborn will be welcomed (back) into the circle of humanity. It will take some time (Look how long it took us to go from slavery to equal rights - we're still on that journey.) but it will happen.


And a hundred or so years from now, historians will look on our practice of killing our unborn, and, lumping us with other despotic examples like Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, sadly shake their heads in disbelief that any social group who call themselves "civilized" would accept such a barbaric practice.


Yes, it is still legal. And you people should be proud of yourselves. Your death toll beats Hitler, Stalin, PolPot, and a whole lot of others combined. Congratulations.


Your entire diatribe simply proves what a braindead useless lump of putrid shit you are. You are completely ignorant of medicine, completely ignorant of the basics of biology, and are claiming to be literally proud of the ability to kill innocent children. And then you wonder why you are lumped in with Hitler and PolPot.

Not once have you used facts or even logic to refute what I say. I say dehumanization is the same regardless of the excuse, and all you can do is stomp your feet in a childish tantrum saying "you bad bad man for saying such awful things!"

When one is reduced to saying "Na na na na naaa na!" then it is obvious their arguments have been reduced to zero validity. Seems to me a more accurate phrase for your post would be "wa wa wa wa waaa wa!"
 
Last edited:
Could you sign my unofficial list of people who agree with me that Good Luck is wrong in this argument.
 
blackascoal said:
Just means you don't understand political parties .. which are not owned nor operated by states. States don't have political parties.

The DNC didn't tell the state they couldn't move their primary, they told the Democratic Party of Mi and Fl they couldn't move their primary.

If you're a registered democrat in either of those states, you have the option of joining the republicans .. who also tell their state parties what they can and cannot do.
Click to expand...
But it was state law that was changed to move the primary, was it not? Wasn't there a complaint about that because who controls the government in FL? I know the date of the primary election is set by state law in MT where I live now, and all the other states I have been posted in over 40 years in the Marine Corps.

And if it WAS the Democratic Party of FL and MI that changed their primary dates, I again ask: Where do they derive the authority to set election dates? Parties are NOT a governmental body.
 
Good Luck said:
But it was state law that was changed to move the primary, was it not? Wasn't there a complaint about that because who controls the government in FL? I know the date of the primary election is set by state law in MT where I live now, and all the other states I have been posted in over 40 years in the Marine Corps.

And if it WAS the Democratic Party of FL and MI that changed their primary dates, I again ask: Where do they derive the authority to set election dates? Parties are NOT a governmental body.
Click to expand...

In both Fl and Mi, it was the state legislature that changed the primary dates, which were in violation of the DNC, and in the case of Fl, also the RNC.

Neither the DNC or RNC control state law, but they do control their own party and have the authority to penalize delegates sent to their conventions.

Political parties are essentially private organizations that seek to gain power within the government, but they are not part of it.
 
blackascoal said:
In both Fl and Mi, it was the state legislature that changed the primary dates, which were in violation of the DNC, and in the case of Fl, also the RNC.

Neither the DNC or RNC control state law, but they do control their own party and have the authority to penalize delegates sent to their conventions.

Political parties are essentially private organizations that seek to gain power within the government, but they are not part of it.
Click to expand...
I understand fully what political parties ARE. In fact, that is the center of my point.

By what authority do the political parties have the power to disenfranchise voters, whose only option in an election is to follow state law? By what right do the parties tell the states (who have the CONSTITUTIONAL authority to appoint delegates to a presidential election, including primaries) that their delegates are not welcome, or will not be counted, because the state GOVERNMENT passes a law the PARTY does not like?

IMO, the parties are starting to WAY overstep their authority. And in doing so, they are seriously endangering the entire democratic process of electing our leadership. The actions of the DNC are plain wrong in this case, and the people, including all registered democrats, and all registered republicans, need to nip this kind of crap in the bud, and make sure BOTH parties understand, as we do, exactly what a political party IS, and what their relationship is to the people and to the government.
 
Good Luck said:
I understand fully what political parties ARE. In fact, that is the center of my point.

By what authority do the political parties have the power to disenfranchise voters, whose only option in an election is to follow state law? By what right do the parties tell the states (who have the CONSTITUTIONAL authority to appoint delegates to a presidential election, including primaries) that their delegates are not welcome, or will not be counted, because the state GOVERNMENT passes a law the PARTY does not like?

IMO, the parties are starting to WAY overstep their authority. And in doing so, they are seriously endangering the entire democratic process of electing our leadership. The actions of the DNC are plain wrong in this case, and the people, including all registered democrats, and all registered republicans, need to nip this kind of crap in the bud, and make sure BOTH parties understand, as we do, exactly what a political party IS, and what their relationship is to the people and to the government.
Click to expand...

But I thought you said you understood what political parties are.

They are not owned by states or government.

There is no constitutional right for the state to control the private institution of national political parties. As in the case of Florida, the republican legislature was within its rights to change state law on primary dates, but has no authority to force any political party to accept that date in defiance of its own rules.

Political Parties are protected by the First Amendment and have the right of free association.

You may wish it to be different, but I don't.
 
Good Luck said:
I understand fully what political parties ARE. In fact, that is the center of my point.

By what authority do the political parties have the power to disenfranchise voters, whose only option in an election is to follow state law? By what right do the parties tell the states (who have the CONSTITUTIONAL authority to appoint delegates to a presidential election, including primaries) that their delegates are not welcome, or will not be counted, because the state GOVERNMENT passes a law the PARTY does not like?

IMO, the parties are starting to WAY overstep their authority. And in doing so, they are seriously endangering the entire democratic process of electing our leadership. The actions of the DNC are plain wrong in this case, and the people, including all registered democrats, and all registered republicans, need to nip this kind of crap in the bud, and make sure BOTH parties understand, as we do, exactly what a political party IS, and what their relationship is to the people and to the government.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely retarded.

Is a convention unconstitutional? The people don't even vote in a convention. A party doesn't have to represent all states whenever selecting a candidate. A party does not have to represent any. It is not an arm of the government. It is a private organization. Whenever it wants to select people for government, it may do so in the way it wishes.
 
blackascoal said:
But I thought you said you understood what political parties are.

They are not owned by states or government.

There is no constitutional right for the state to control the private institution of national political parties. As in the case of Florida, the republican legislature was within its rights to change state law on primary dates, but has no authority to force any political party to accept that date in defiance of its own rules.

Political Parties are protected by the First Amendment and have the right of free association.

You may wish it to be different, but I don't.
Click to expand...
Where the heck did you get THAT from? Where did I once say I wanted government to control the parties? Where did I say parties are (or should be) controlled by the government? Point it out please.

What I am objecting to is the parties interference with LAWS. We are talking about laws constitutionally written and passed by people's representatives in state governments. The parties FIRST had the gall to tell states they cannot change their primary dates, then acted by disenfranchising voters to enforce their RULES over and above the laws of the states.

The app[ointment of delegates, and the authority, is derived from the Constitution, not from the by laws of a fucking political party. They do NOT have the right to say whose delegates count according to their rules. They are NOT, as you say, a governing body, and as such do NOT have any authority to dictate or interfere with the election process - not even the primaries.

Are you seriously defending the actions of the DNC and RNC when they discount people's votes because their state changed the primary date? Or how about using EXIT POLLS instead of real ballots to determine outcome? Why not use tarot cards and tea leaves, if you want to dictate your party's nominee and discount the will of your own party membership? Why not set up a democratic party dictator-for-life who simply points at someone and tells democrats "That person is your nominee - deal with it."

I know you are a socialist. But I would have sworn you said you are a democratic socialist.
 
Good Luck said:
Where the heck did you get THAT from? Where did I once say I wanted government to control the parties? Where did I say parties are (or should be) controlled by the government? Point it out please.

What I am objecting to is the parties interference with LAWS. We are talking about laws constitutionally written and passed by people's representatives in state governments. The parties FIRST had the gall to tell states they cannot change their primary dates, then acted by disenfranchising voters to enforce their RULES over and above the laws of the states.

The app[ointment of delegates, and the authority, is derived from the Constitution, not from the by laws of a fucking political party. They do NOT have the right to say whose delegates count according to their rules. They are NOT, as you say, a governing body, and as such do NOT have any authority to dictate or interfere with the election process - not even the primaries.

Are you seriously defending the actions of the DNC and RNC when they discount people's votes because their state changed the primary date? Or how about using EXIT POLLS instead of real ballots to determine outcome? Why not use tarot cards and tea leaves, if you want to dictate your party's nominee and discount the will of your own party membership? Why not set up a democratic party dictator-for-life who simply points at someone and tells democrats "That person is your nominee - deal with it."

I know you are a socialist. But I would have sworn you said you are a democratic socialist.
Click to expand...

As a democratic socialist the only difference I would like to see is more representation through more parties.

And yes, I defend the right of both the DNC and RNC to set their own timetables for their own conventions, and I agree that they, and only they, should control delegates, set their own agendas, and put forth their own candidates.

They aren't interfering with LAWS. States can't make laws that dictate how a private national organization operates within compliance of federal laws, nor do states PAY FOR their operational costs.

If political parties didn't have the authority to penalize delegates, don't you think that would have been successfully challenged by now?

Question: What does the Constitution say about political parties?

Answer: Absolutely nothing.

What does the Constitution say about primary elections?

Absolutely nothing.

Primary elections are in fact, party elections .. and the Supreme Court has ruled that political parties are private entities and can prohibit anyone from participating who is not registered with that party.

In fact, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote. It requires that representatives be chosen and Senators elected by the people .. and nowhere in the Constitution will you find any mention of how elections are to be conducted.

With all due respect, I think you're a bit confused about the Constitution .. if not, post where in the Constitution it says anything about political parties, primary elections, or how elections should be conducted.

If you research the history of how political parties evolved and came to be, in spite of Madison's distaste for factions, and how thew Supreme Court views political parties, you'll find your answers there.

By the way, political parties can use any metric they choose to pick their nominee, including tarot cards. Your option is to pick another party.
 
Last edited:
Watermark said:
You are a fucking liar. You are just working for McCain and LYING AND PRETENDING TO CARE ABOUT DEMOCRACY. What a fucking disgrace.
Click to expand...


I can understand that most of the people on this board similar to you, will not take the time to analyze WHAT REALLY HAPPENED in that meeting yesterday, and what happened was a travesty, leaving Obama and Clinton out of it.

The Devil is in the details, and they counted on you and others not to know them, or to know the consequences of them, on our democracy.

Those voters in Michigan votes were cast for one candidate or another.

The DNC took UNRELIABLE INFORMATION from AN UNRELIABLE POLL and physically relaid out their vote ACCORDING TO WHAT THE DNC THOUGHT IT SHOULD BE.....they PICKED our candidate and CHANGED State Certified votes and State Certified Delegates!!!!

If this is all just a "private party" then why do our tax dollars PAY FOR IT and why do we State Certify our STATE delegates to be sent there, mr so smart watermark?

YOU ARE ALL just handing away our sovereignty to rule our government, a fundamental right to DEMOCRACY....

And you just let the DNC, TAKE OUR PRIVATE, yes in secret vote, yes our SECRET AND PRECIOUS BALLOT, and change these people's votes TO WHAT THEY WANTED THEM TO BE, based on a poll FOR CHRIST'S SAKE, a fricking poll and MIND reading....jimminne christmas almighty, you are dumber than dumb....and I thought you were smart....

People vote their true intentions behind a SECRET BALLOT, this is why this year our exit polls have been really off....

men that pretend like they would support a woman, and say so in a poll, while behind the curtain they pull the lever for the man...

Blacks that support a black candidate in public with their friends, but behind the curtain they go for the other candidate because they really think they are stronger,

a white person wanting to be part of the support a strong black candidate crowd, but behind the curtain he pulls the lever for who HE REALLY THINKS is the stronger candidate....

These delegates had already gone thru state certification, following all government rules and protocols, based on the ACTUAL votes cast.

The DNC just said BULL SHIT to the Private vote, BULLSHIT to the votes cast by individuals...

and they also said BULLSHIT to Michigan's own certified votes and delegates, and BULLSHIT to following the actual STATE AUTHORIZED RULES which is MANDATORY that the Delegates allocated to UNDECIDED votes ARE UNPLEDGED DELEGATES and were certified by the State as UNPLEDGED DELEGATES.....

Now, I don't know what UNIVERSE you and others on this SITE LIVE ON, but what the DNC did was unconstitutional, and illegal, and THEY DO NOT FRICKING RULE US....

it is OUR Primary ELECTION not theirs....they do not pay for it, WE DO... with our tax dollars...it is NOT THEIR State Government Certified Vote, these are NOT THEIR State Certified Delegates...they are oursssssssssssss, or specifically, the people of Michigans, not senator's of michigans, NOT THE DNC's, NOT the Michigan Democratic Party.

And you all, for the sake of YOUR CANDIDATE are willing to ignore that we just got it in the BUTT, BIGTIME....as CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY...

And we, by letting it happen for the sake of our candidate, just took away the Secret Ballot and put our ACTUAL VOTE and sovereignty, in to the hands of the DNC and RNC....

AND I WILL NOT stop talking about this, till the day I die....

As with the decision fromn the SC with Bush v gore........

THIS IS JUST AS BAD FOR US, NO...NO....IT IS ACTUALLY WORSE.....because Bush v gore, can NEVER be used again or as precedent, but this SLIGHT OF HAND can be used again and again and again.......

You are the fool watermark....especially since you are actually smart enough to understand all of this, but I guess it takes more than smarts, but some maturity...perhaps????? ;)

Care
 
What happened to you, Care?

I really don't understand why Hillary's campaign & supporters are upset about the weekend decision. The only thing I can conclude is that the only acceptable outcome for them would have been if the rules committee had found a way to get her every single delegate from both FL & MI, so that she could somehow have a chance of overtaking Obama in the delegate count. Just find a way to have all of them go to her, and none to Obama.

Anyway, you've all lost your collective minds. It's really weird, and difficult to watch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top