Should Florida & Michigan count?

[Bonestorm]

True. You'd think they'd have learned better by now. However, I predict we will find they have not, when this years' Democrat convention rolls around.


In fact, they are closely analagous, in intent, setup and in execution.


Correct. A rule I predict Hillary will now move heaven and earth to change after the fact.


It's not wise to try to make a point by carefully ignoring half the rules. In fact, it's rapidly becoming a Hillary-esque tactic.

The operative rule, as laid down by the Floriduh legislature long before the election, was that the state would certify the results of the election one week after voting was finished. The U.S. Constitution requires that elections in each state be run according to rules laid down by that state's legislature. Gore's mistake (aside from trying to overturn the results at all) was in trying to get the Floriduh COURTS to come up with new election rules, and doing it after the voting had already taken place. That was what the 7-2 margin of the USSC slapped him down for.

Here, I predict that Hillary will employ exactly the same tactics: trying to get the courts to overturn rules on the Michigan and Florida elections after the voting has taken place. The Constitution makes no rules about primary party elections such as these. But the Clintons' constant attempts to change the rules of elections after they are over, after agreeing to those rules up until election day, is a theme we will see repeated any time the Clintons think they can gain some advantage, as long as they do not actually wind up in jail due to their attempts.


Trying to ignore the obvious similarities is desperate partisanship. It's not as if we couldn't predict what Clinton-administration people will do when they are desperate, after decades of gruesome evidence they have freely given us.

STFU, Donnie. You're out of your element.

 

[Timshel]

If I am willing to take action to stop others from changing the rules in the middle of the game I am taking action.

Well what are you doing on that? Yeah, I did not think so, you are just whining.

You again are disingenuous. And the "Participating in evil" crap was yours, dorkboy. I pointed out how dumb that argument was in "whining is enough because others will do something" argument.

No, I never argued that. You did by implying that there is something wrong with trying to change the rules in the middle of the game.

 

[Damocles]

Well what are you doing on that? Yeah, I did not think so, you are just whining.

Actually laughing would be better. However, in the 2000 election I donated money towards legal fees. What did you do?

No, I never argued that. You did by implying that there is something wrong with trying to change the rules in the middle of the game.

I never argued that. Somebody said, "Some people don't want to participate because they think they'd be contributing to..."

I said the argument that 'participating in evil' is preposterous.

Now go be deliberately obtuse elsewhere. Defender of the lazy.

 

[LadyT]

Make no mistake: Hillary's campaign is going to fight tooth & nail for these delegations to be seated. I have little doubt that Obama's would, too, if it would benefit them.

This should not happen, as things stand. It was stupid of the DNC to punish both states in this way, but that's what they did, and the candidates were supposed to abide by those rules. No campaigns were run in those states, and many voters did not go to the polls because they didn't think their vote would count.

The ONLY way they should be seated is if real contests are run in those states, which is still a possibility. To seat them as is would be a crime.

I agree with Desh, its not fair to assume he would fight for them if Hillary even does. He did keep his name off the ballot in Michigan and it would be extremely unfair unless they had another election. The voting populace were told that it wouldn't count. They shouldn't go back on their agreements going into this.

 

[Little-Acorn]

It's like an umpire saying in the 5th inning that now you have to throw four strikes to get someone out and only 3 balls will be a walk.

It's like doing that, and then adding or removing runs from the scoreboard from previous innings because they wouldn or wouldn't have been scored if these new "rules" were in place back then.

The obviousness of the injustice of such rules changes, is matched only by the breathtaking effrontery and unscrupulousness of the people trying to foist the rules change on us anyway.

 

[Damocles]

I agree with Desh, its not fair to assume he would fight for them if Hillary even does. He did keep his name off the ballot in Michigan and it would be extremely unfair unless they had another election. The voting populace were told that it wouldn't count. They shouldn't go back on their agreements going into this.

Michigan was half delegates. They were not told that they didn't count.

 

[Timshel]

Actually laughing would be better. However, in the 2000 election I donated money towards legal fees. What did you do?

For the repubs? How is that relevant?

I never argued that. Somebody said, "Some people don't want to participate because they think they'd be contributing to..."

I said the argument that 'participating in evil' is preposterous.

Now go be deliberately obtuse elsewhere.

You argued that it is wrong to try to change the rules now. What is that but "participating in the process?" You are complaing about any process that allows for the rules to be changed midstream and I (using your illogic) say unless you get in there and actually engage in the battle you have no right to "whine."

Defender of the lazy.

That's right. The lazy and apathetic have a right to be free from a bunch of dorks thinking they have the right to elect people to annoy the lazy.

 

[Damocles]

For the repubs? How is that relevant?

When it mattered I was willing to take action in the direction that I thought was justified. Was I wrong? I don't think so, election rules should not change during the counting.

You argued that it is wrong to try to change the rules now. What is that but "participating in the process?" You are complaing about any process that allows for the rules to be changed midstream and I (using your illogic) say unless you get in there and actually engage in the battle you have no right to "whine."

And being willing to wade into the battle against those who want to change it in midstream is certainly being willing to take action. You are deliberately obtuse if you don't recognize that.

That's right. The lazy and apathetic have a right to be free from a bunch of dorks thinking they have the right to elect people to annoy the lazy.

LOL. OK. Nice that you are willing to take up the charge for those unwilling to help themselves. I wouldn't bother in this case. It's not my party.

 

[Topspin]

I think he'll win by more than that margin.
I also think the Obama supporters would be raising 10x the sting had he gotten a couple hundred thousand more votes in FL like Hillary did.

 

[Timshel]

And being willing to wade into the battle against those who want to change it in midstream is certainly being willing to take action. You are deliberately obtuse if you don't recognize that.

But what are you doing about that? You gave money in 2000 to stop it in that campaign, you have not paid your tax to "whine" about this instance.

 

[Damocles]

But what are you doing about that? You gave money in 2000 to stop it in that campaign, you have not paid your tax to "whine" about this instance.

I'm not whining in this instance, I am pointing and laughing.

 

[Timshel]

I'm not whining in this instance, I am pointing and laughing.

Copout. You expressed an opinion on a process in which you are unwilling to participate. You don't really care about the results and that somehow empowers you to whine where those that do may not.

You should write with such gems. I have a title for you. "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Being a Complete Idiot".

 

[Damocles]

Copout. You expressed an opinion on a process in which you are unwilling to participate. You don't really care about the results and that somehow empowers you to whine where those that do may not.

You should write with such gems. I have a title for you. "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Being a Complete Idiot".

There is a difference between whining and mocking. You are desperate to come up with some argument where just sitting on your butt and whining makes you a hero. Well, RS, it doesn't. Although I can take your argument about how whining makes such a huge difference and use it as the first chapter of the book. Thanks for your contribution!

 

[Timshel]

There is a difference between whining and mocking. You are desperate to come up with some argument where just sitting on your butt and whining makes you a hero. Well, RS, it doesn't. Although I can take your argument about how whining makes such a huge difference and use it as the first chapter of the book. Thanks for your contribution!

Get it straight, I am a heroic rabble-rouser. Watertard is just a crybaby.

My point is that it serves a purpose and it is stupid to attack people for it, especially since you have no idea if that is the limit of their activism or not.

 

[Damocles]

Get it straight, I am a heroic rabble-rouser. Watertard is just a crybaby.

My point is that it serves a purpose and it is stupid to attack people for it, especially since you have no idea if that is the limit of their activism or not.

I attacked nobody, I told them to get off the butts and do something. That is offering advice. Get with the program.

I am an action person, not a sit back person. But heck, you can jump to the rescue of the people with the remotes that didn't vote but want to tell you how your vote sucked.

 

[Timshel]

As Mencken said, Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. And you are bitching at the sheep for failing to vote.

 

[Epicurus]

I know plenty of people who do not want to legitimize the process through participation.

I disagree, but I understand and respect their choice and reasons for it.

The system is badly rigged.

 

[Timshel]

I know plenty of people who do not want to legitimize the process through participation.

I disagree, but I understand and respect their choice and reasons for it.

The system is badly rigged.

That's what I said and Dano claims I am arguing that participation is evil. I think that perspective is wrong, because they don't really care if you participate or not, they consider the process legitimate. I still think the point is valid, just futile. Participating is pretty futile as well, but slightly less futile.

 

[Timshel]

The wolves are going to eat you anyway. Might as well vote and hope one of the wolves has a conscience.

 

[Damocles]

The wolves are going to eat you anyway. Might as well vote and hope one of the wolves has a conscience.

Or you might as well gang up in numbers, herd animals can often stave off predation when working together.

The doom and gloom that is prevalent in, "There's nothing I can do so why bother doing anything but complain?!" is sad.

And I am not Dano.