Typical dems... cloak and daggers...

Cancel 2016.2

Cancel 2016.2

The Almighty
Why so much secrecy? Who really decides the candidate for Iowa? Why is this process tolerated by Iowans?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/opinion/18cranberg.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

While not shocked that the Dems would handle an election in this manner, I am shocked that individuals like Desh and BAC have not cried foul. I say this because I know both are passionate about obtaining fair elections (or as close as we can come to fair). Yet, I had to read this from the Times. Was anyone else aware of the difference between parties in Iowa? Because this was news to me.
 
uscitizen said:
Some valid Points.
Butt! this is an opionion piece, so take it for what it is.
Click to expand...

It is an editorial... which by nature is someones opinion. That does not mean there are not facts within the story. The authors opinions are in how the media should be presenting this information. The way the Dems handle the procedures is fact, not opinion.
 
And how long has it been this way ?
My states primary is so late it makes no difference on the candidate selection.
Yep it does not sound right, but after all a political party is not supposed to be a government entity.
 
US... I am not sure how long the Dems have been hiding the actual numbers. But I think the authors are correct in that the public should demand to know. It would be bad if it were a state with a later primary, but often times momentum can be gained from early primary results and thus that compounds the issue.... because we don't even know if the Dem "selected" was truly "selected" by the people of Iowa.
 
Kinda like the president losing the popular vote.


do away with the electorial college. Pure popular vote.
 
uscitizen said:
Kinda like the president losing the popular vote.


do away with the electorial college. Pure popular vote.
Click to expand...

No, it is not like that. Because the popular vote is always known. THAT is how we know who won the corresponding electoral votes. It is called transparency. Something the Dems in Iowa obviously do not believe in.... no matter how many different ways you try to twist this story into something about Bush or the Reps.
 
All I am saying is that it is the democratic parties business, not the governments or the other parties business.
this is after all a political parties candidate selection and is not really covered by the constitution is it ?

should we have such transparency in other organizations ?
 
uscitizen said:
All I am saying is that it is the democratic parties business, not the governments or the other parties business.
this is after all a political parties candidate selection and is not really covered by the constitution is it ?

should we have such transparency in other organizations ?
Click to expand...

Yes, when electing public officials, every election should be transparent with regards to the number of voters voting for each candidate.

This is NOT a democratic party issue. This is an issue we must each address, because it could effect who the candidate is for President. THAT potentially effects all of us.

If the actual numbers are kept secret, how do we know the percentage results reported are accurate? They could simply make the shit up and we would have no way of knowing.
 
Damocles said:
Which doesn't stop you from buying gold with your money if you think this is the best investment. Do think of the fact it has been going down in worth lately, not upwards. You can also use it to purchase whatever else of value you think will hold the value better. Personally I prefer the way money works now to losing value in my account without doing anything because it associates to a market segment.
Click to expand...

Gold is actually going up.
 
Superfreak said:
Yes, when electing public officials, every election should be transparent with regards to the number of voters voting for each candidate.

This is NOT a democratic party issue. This is an issue we must each address, because it could effect who the candidate is for President. THAT potentially effects all of us.

If the actual numbers are kept secret, how do we know the percentage results reported are accurate? They could simply make the shit up and we would have no way of knowing.
Click to expand...

well if you don't like it do not belong to it ? Ohh you don't ;)
 
Superfreak said:
Yes, when electing public officials, every election should be transparent with regards to the number of voters voting for each candidate.

This is NOT a democratic party issue. This is an issue we must each address, because it could effect who the candidate is for President. THAT potentially effects all of us.

If the actual numbers are kept secret, how do we know the percentage results reported are accurate? They could simply make the shit up and we would have no way of knowing.
Click to expand...



Yes, when electing public officials, every election should be transparent with regards to the number of voters voting for each candidate.

They're not electing public officials. These are the caucus nominations of a private, political party. Its not an election for an actual public office. Private political parties can do whatever the hell they want.

Although, in principle, I'm always in favor of more transparency, even for private entities.
 
uscitizen said:
well if you don't like it do not belong to it ? Ohh you don't ;)
Click to expand...

Again, you are missing the point.... It matters not what party (if any) you belong to. No election in a democracy should hide the actual votes of the populace. Regardless of which party is doing it. It should never happen.
 
You are missing the point in thinking the selection of political party primary candidate is anything other than an organization selecting who they want to represent their organization.
It is in no way a govt function.
Bitch about how the masons vote and do not tell us about it.
 
uscitizen said:
You are missing the point in thinking the sleection of political party pirmary candidate is naything other than an organization selecting who they want to represent their organization.
It is in no way a govt function.
Bitch about how the masons vote and do not tell us about it.
Click to expand...

So you are suggesting that it is ok to hide the actual results from the people that are supposedly making the selection? I understand it is the Dems that are selecting their candidate.... but they are selecting that candidate based on the will of those that attend the caucus and then hiding the results from those caucus goers.

Glad to see you Dems don't have a problem with such secrecy. Secrecy that could lead to defrauding the public its true choice without anyone the wiser.
 
I am not saying it is right, but that is the organizations business.
It is certainly not your business since you belong to the other party.
 
uscitizen said:
I am not saying it is right, but that is the organizations business.
It is certainly not your business since you belong to the other party.
Click to expand...

because it effects who may be the Dems nominee for President, it most certainly IS everyones business. It has the potential to effect my options for whom I vote.

But please, keep trying to find ways to justify this.
 
It is not nay more of you busienss than the way masons elect their leaders.
Now the real election is another matter.

Now if you were a member of the democratic party you would be allowed to bitch.

Get the idea ?
 
Last edited:
uscitizen said:
It is not nay more of you busienss than the way masons elect their leaders.
Now the real election is another matter.
Click to expand...

Really? Do the masons elections determine one of the two main party candidates for President?

Oh, thats right, NO they do not. Like I said, continue to try to justify this or act as though it shouldn't concern anyone. It is typical of dems like you to justify bullshit like this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top