old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 01:17 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
However, when Michigan broke the rules, the DNC not only penalized us, but they went far beyond the normal penalty (50% of the delegates) and took away all our delegates.


Ah? I thought the DNC not only seated all of the Michigan delegates, but also restored their full convention voting rights?



oralloy wrote:
Obama decided to favor those partisans and spit in the face of Michigan voters, and he took his name off the ballot. One main consequence of this was that he received no votes in the Michigan primary.


That's tough luck for Obama, but how did this disenfrenchise you? You would have been able to write in Obama, right?


oralloy wrote:
In the end, Obama let have Hillary have a bit more than 50% of the delegates, but he still refused to let the delegates be apportioned according to the will of the voters, and he took a bunch of delegates that he was never awarded (including some delegates that the voters apportioned to Hillary).


The split was 69 - 59 pledged delegates for Clinton. Both Clinton and Obama accepted that proposal by the Michigan Democratic Party. In the primary, Clinton won against "Uncommitted" 55-40%. According to exit polls, however, 46% of voters in Michigan would have voted for Clinton, 35% for Obama, 12% for Edwards and 3% other if all names had been on the ballot.

How many delegates have, in your opinion, been illegitimately been taken by Obama?
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 01:35 am
@old europe,
You see, oralloy, you have been put in your place by Old Europe. Why, it would seem, after reading old Europe's comments that you are quite mistaken about being disenfranchised.
Old Europe shows how you are mistaken,oralloy. He knows!!!
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 04:16 am
@old europe,
old europe wrote:
oralloy wrote:
However, when Michigan broke the rules, the DNC not only penalized us, but they went far beyond the normal penalty (50% of the delegates) and took away all our delegates.


Ah? I thought the DNC not only seated all of the Michigan delegates, but also restored their full convention voting rights?


But the delegates were not apportioned according to the result of the election.



old europe wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Obama decided to favor those partisans and spit in the face of Michigan voters, and he took his name off the ballot. One main consequence of this was that he received no votes in the Michigan primary.


That's tough luck for Obama, but how did this disenfrenchise you? You would have been able to write in Obama, right?


No one was allowed to write in Obama.

It might have been tough luck for Obama had he been willing to accept getting no delegates, but he instead decided to just take delegates that did not belong to him.

It disenfranchised me by ignoring the results of the election, and awarding Obama delegates he didn't earn from the voters.



old europe wrote:
oralloy wrote:
In the end, Obama let have Hillary have a bit more than 50% of the delegates, but he still refused to let the delegates be apportioned according to the will of the voters, and he took a bunch of delegates that he was never awarded (including some delegates that the voters apportioned to Hillary).


The split was 69 - 59 pledged delegates for Clinton.


Which is not what the voters said.

http://www.michigandems.com/newsroom.php?id=10



old europe wrote:
Both Clinton and Obama accepted that proposal by the Michigan Democratic Party.


Clinton didn't. She fought to have the will of the voters respected.



old europe wrote:
In the primary, Clinton won against "Uncommitted" 55-40%. According to exit polls, however, 46% of voters in Michigan would have voted for Clinton, 35% for Obama, 12% for Edwards and 3% other if all names had been on the ballot.


Doesn't matter what the exit polls say might have been if Obama had enough respect for Michigan to put his name on the ballot.

What matters is how people voted.



old europe wrote:
How many delegates have, in your opinion, been illegitimately been taken by Obama?


All 59.

The result of the election was 73 delegates for Clinton, and 55 uncommitted delegates.

If Obama didn't like those results, the solution was to not take his name off the ballot, not to steal delegates that the voters didn't award to him.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 04:22 am
@genoves,
genoves wrote:
You see, oralloy, you have been put in your place by Old Europe. Why, it would seem, after reading old Europe's comments that you are quite mistaken about being disenfranchised.
Old Europe shows how you are mistaken,oralloy. He knows!!!


I keep trying to think of a way to get you guys to not misunderstand each other.

At any rate, I still feel solidly disenfranchised.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 04:30 am
@Montana,
Montana wrote:

I'm just curious to know how many Bush supporters
there still are out there. Feel free to stop in and let us know
who you are.

<I do mean President Bush>

I don t know how u choose to define that.
Absolutely FOR SURE I 'd have voted again for either of the Bushes
against the leftists who ran against them (Dukakis, Gore n Kerry),
but I don 't support a lot of W's policy choices, nor those of his dad.

Noteably, we shoud have overthown Saddam much sooner
and gotten the hell OUT of their much sooner.

Bush Sr. was a fool for LEAVING Saddam intact, in power,
thereby necessitating a second war to do what we shoud have
done and almost did the first time.

Ideally, I 'd like Ron Paul or Bob Barr to run the show.



David
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 07:40 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
Not my party. I'm still a Democrat. A highly disgruntled Democrat, but still a Democrat.

Apologies, in that case.
Quote:
After the way Obama and the DNC disenfranchised me in the Michigan primary, I'll probably vote only for Republicans for the rest of my life

Your choice of issues on which to decide affiliation, of course. Mine tend to turn on other sorts of issues, eg torture; politicization of the justice department; rejection/suppression of scientific findings for real or imagined electoral gains or for the continued support of the corporate sphere; lying their nation into an unnecessary war of enormous expense, of costs in American soldiers lives (now far exceeding the loss of American lives in 9/11) not to mention some unknown number of non-American lives (half a million? more?); sealing off government operations (even non-military) from the citizenry, the courts and the press; using fear as an election and propaganda tool; rejection of international agreements and accords; etc.

But what the heck. I'm sure that your issue is darned important to you.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 07:50 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
They'd probably do better with an NPR talk radio audio feed and a BBC 24-hour news feed than they would with either Rush Limbaugh or Air America.

Probably?

So, what's the US military doing pumping Limbaugh into the Green Zone? Perhaps it is to encourage soldiers to recognize their relationship to the CIC, as seems to be the case in the two quotes following, the first from yesterday and the second from shortly before:
Quote:
It’s just because this guy’s father was black? Is that why we’re supposed to all hope for his success?

Quote:
“I disagree fervently with the people on our [Republican] side of the aisle who have caved and who say, ‘Well, I hope he succeeds.’”

…Limbaugh told his listeners that he was asked by “a major American print publication” to offer a 400-word statement explaining his “hope for the Obama presidency.” He responded:

So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, “Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.” (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here’s the point. Everybody thinks it’s outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, “Oh, you can’t do that.” Why not? Why is it any different, what’s new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don’t care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.” Somebody’s gotta say it.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 09:10 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
Not my party. I'm still a Democrat. A highly disgruntled Democrat, but still a Democrat.

After the way Obama and the DNC disenfranchised me in the Michigan primary, I'll probably vote only for Republicans for the rest of my life (or at least for a very long time), but I still agree with more Democratic positions than Republican positions -- especially when it comes to economics and social spending.

Yet another reason to restrict the franchise.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 11:00 am
@OmSigDAVID,



ERRATUM:
"Noteably, we shoud have overthown Saddam much sooner
and gotten the hell OUT of their much sooner"

shoud have been rendered:

"Noteably, we shoud have overthown Saddam much sooner
and gotten the hell OUT of there much sooner.





David
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 05:14 pm
@blatham,
Dont forget you owe me mmoney.
You lost the bet you made with me, and you assured everyone that you would pay if you lost.
Contact me to arrange payment.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 05:26 pm
@blatham,
Quote:
I note that Iran has been bombed into the stone age


Who bombed Iran?
We havent.

So if that has happened, dont blame Bush.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 05:30 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
I note that Iran has been bombed into the stone age


Who bombed Iran?
We havent.

So if that has happened, dont blame Bush.

Maybe he has Iran 's war against Saddam in mind ?
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 11:08 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Om Sig. You must forgive Blatham. He has not been the same since he had an unfortunate health issue. He sometimes makes egregious errors. I am happy that he was able to avail himself of our fantastically efficient and professional health services instead of having to subject himself to the questionable ministrations of the doctors in his home country-Canada, who operate under the burden of Socialized Medicine.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2009 12:17 am
Darn Genoves. I had hoped you really were somebody seriously arguing from conviction and rational common sense. But with your last post I know who you are now and recognize you as the only member on A2K that I've ever put on ignore. That makes me really really sad. Sad
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2009 02:08 am
@Foxfyre,
Oh no, you had to say that Fox! Now it's gonna drive me nuts trying to figure out who it is Laughing
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2009 02:31 am
@Foxfyre,
That took quite a while Wink
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2009 02:38 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre- I am sorry but I do not allow anyone to defecate on me. Look at the recent exchanges between Blotham and me. You will see that he is a true scumbag! You recognized "conviction and rational common sense" but because of some previous postings, the recognition of "conviction and rational common sense" were just a figment of your imagination? Think about that, Foxfyre.
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2009 02:40 am
@mysteryman,
You won't get it Mysteryman.

l. He hates anyone who has ever been in the US military.

2. His cardiology bills are quite high.

3. He thinks he is above all of us peasants.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2009 02:52 am
@genoves,
genoves wrote:

Om Sig. You must forgive Blatham. He has not been the same since he had an unfortunate health issue. He sometimes makes egregious errors. I am happy that he was able to avail himself of our fantastically efficient and professional health services instead of having to subject himself to the questionable ministrations of the doctors in his home country-Canada, who operate under the burden of Socialized Medicine.

Understood. OK; I 'll forgive him.





David
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Bush Supporters
  3. » Page 5
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/01/2022 at 08:51:24