Creepy? honorable?

Allowing primary votes in the two states would, in essence, award anarchy.

It would make a mockery of party rules, and diminish the power of the party.

The voters in those states should question of judgment of their Dem leaders.

Should Hillary lose the primary, she most definitely will invoke a lawsuit
in Michigan and Florida, for disenfranchising the voters of their constitutional
right. I don't put anything past her - she's as mean spirited as they can
get in order to gain power.

That Kuebler-Ross statement of e-brown is funny, but so right.

"If 25 states all opt for Jan 3, so what?"


Is that really what you would want? If you think about how much money it takes to run these campaigns already, and think about how difficult it would be for someone who is not rich enough to finance his/her own campaign entirely from the get-go(i'm talking Romney, Blumberg, or Corzine rich), it would be impossible for a little known, not superbly connected, or fabulously wealthy individual/politician to find their footing and run a good enough campaign to make themselves known to A) the voters and B) financiers, if 25 states voted on one day.

So yes, you are right, it IS about power. It's one of the few (and hardly sufficient) restraints on well financed, and finely oiled political and advertising machines from trouncing on (again let me stress RELATIVE) underdogs before they can prove their mettle and establish themselves on more even ground.

The democratic national committee is one hundred percent justified in putting teeth behind their pledge to negate the delegates from those states which broke the rules. They are there for a reason, and the country, not to mention democracy, wouldnt be better off if they were habitually broken.

georgeob1 wrote:

No one appears to be taking a principaled view of this matter. Both candidates are merely pursuing their own short-term self interests: the DNC appears to be concerned only about its power within the party. No one, not even the DNC, appears to be concerned about the exclusion of the voters in two of our largest states.

The principled stand is to allow people to reap what they sow, to not keep people from the consequences of their actions. It is a hard lesson to be sure, but people need to understand that they are responsible for what is done in their name.

Oral, I have to admire you in a way. You are able to state complete nonsense with absolute aplomb. I guess this makes you a good Rep.

And I'm a conservative Democrat.

oralloy wrote:

And I'm a conservative Democrat.

No sir, you are not.

We don't want you in the party, so please stop saying things like this.

Your aggressive war stance disqualifies you,

amongst other idiocies you spout from time to time, sorry to say.

Interesting; because neither Iraq nor Iran has attacked us in any fashion, yet you support the Iraq war and are an advocate of nuking Iran.

We don't want war-mongers like you in the party.

I am neutral on the Iraq war, and an opponent of nuking Iran.

(Unless we are talking about a hypothetical where Iran nukes the US or Israel first, or if some new information comes out that shows that Iran did 9/11, or something similar.)

oralloy wrote:

I am neutral on the Iraq war, and an opponent of nuking Iran.

(Unless we are talking about a hypothetical where Iran nukes the US or Israel first, or if some new information comes out that shows that Iran did 9/11, or something similar.)

I do support bombing Iran with conventional weapons.

So does Joe Lieberman.

(Nothing major -- just a limited strike against a few nuclear sites.)

oralloy wrote:

And I'm a conservative Democrat.

No sir, you are not.

We don't want you in the party

Cycloptichorn wrote:

oralloy wrote:

And I'm a conservative Democrat.

No sir, you are not.

We don't want you in the party

Cyclo - why do you do things like this? You appear to be actively trying to turn people away from your party, and the candidate you've indicated a preference for.

Mr. Obama speaks to to unity and inclusion.

"we don't want you in the party" isn't how he's been campaigning

oralloy wrote:

And I'm a conservative Democrat.

No sir, you are not.

We don't want you in the party, so please stop saying things like this.

Your aggressive war stance disqualifies you, amongst other idiocies you spout from time to time, sorry to say.

Cycloptichorn

It's not just MORE Democrats, it's more and BETTER Dems which are needed. Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It's not just MORE Democrats, it's more and BETTER Dems which are needed. Cycloptichorn

go back to nimh's polls thread - you need more - you can qualify them another day

ehBeth wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It's not just MORE Democrats, it's more and BETTER Dems which are needed. Cycloptichorn

go back to nimh's polls thread - you need more - you can qualify them another day

Not worried about the election this Fall too much. Grandpa John doesn't have what it takes.

Cycloptichorn

Don't you remember we have Diebold on our side, Cyclops?

Still not worried?