It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Clinton? Obama? or Edwards? Who Will It Be?

page: 24
12
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Well, Don, we may have to agree to disagree...but...I doubt it. I think we're going to see this issue tested out at some point in this calendar year. I really don't see how its legal for a political party to decide which delegates get seated from which States. I would be just as mad if the GOP had done the same, or similar.

It's up to the individual States to decide when they vote, and it needs to be that way.

It's altogether possible for Democrat loyalists to carry this off. There are certain GOP "statesmen" who would love to see this do-over standard put in to place. In the future, as Republicans become a starving minority, they'll use this tool and any others they can predicate from this to frazzle and frustrate the Democrat agenda. I have my doubts about their success, but I still do think they'll try.

At this late date, nobody is going to be made "happy." Even if Mr. Dean does what you suggest, the Dems are on theri way towards a power grab that would make any carpet-bagging Republican jealous.

[edit on 10-3-2008 by Justin Oldham]




posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 09:47 PM
link   
With all the cat fights going on between Clinton & Obama. Alot of the people are starting to look elsewhere for better folks to put in there. I for one would not vote for either. They are acting way to childish. Edwards acts like a real man and would be the best of the 3.

Hilda



posted on Mar, 11 2008 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by hildar
 


With all the cat fights going on between Clinton & Obama. A lot of the people are starting to look elsewhere for better folks to put in there. I for one would not vote for either. They are acting way to childish. Edwards acts like a real man and would be the best of the 3. Hilda


I'm sorry you feel that way, H. This is the FIRST time in the history of the world that any large self respecting country has put the selection of its Maximum Leader out for contest for TWO years. First, the US wants to think of itself as the LAST super power. Yet, we cannot catch our primary nemesis, our MOST hated man, Osama bin Laden despite us offering a $50 million reward in GOLD. And despite us having lackeys at our beck and call in Iraq, Afghan, Pakistan and Israel. So maybe this Super Power thing is not all that good a deal?

On the downside of a two years long campaign, besides wearing out the listeners, as in your case, by necessity having to repeat the same litany over and over, like the Dems had 20 debates, our Foreign Policy is in LIMBO. No other self respecting government wants to talk to an OUTGOING president on any long term issues. So America is effectively OFF the stage of world affairs until January 20, 2009. That's still 10 months away and here you are already complaining about your choices. If you are TIRED of this marathon, can you imagine how Hillary and Barack must feel? If you recall from history the fate of the FIRST messenger from the real Marathon, then I know you join me in hoping that same fate does not happen to the US of A. What a waste that would be!

Let us Pray: May This Foolishness NEVER Happen Again!

[edit on 3/11/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 11 2008 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


IMO the debate between states rights and federalism will be timeless much like how Australia and New Zealand debate which country the Pavlova first made an appearance or to a less extend which country the first Anzac Biscuits came out of.

Before any political reforms saw the light of day in the US both sides would have to the states rights vs federal government debate to one side.

Footnote
Pavlova is named after Russian ballerina who is connected with its introduction in this part of the world. As the name suggests Anzac Biscuits either first originated in either Australia or New Zealand.



posted on Mar, 11 2008 @ 06:03 AM
link   

posted by Xpert11
My initial gut feeling does point towards Don’s thinking about the Republicans pulling a fast one. Its not a good thing no matter what the reasoning behind it is. All of this serves to re enforce the impression that the US political system was designed for minority control long before the days of 24 hour news networks and special interest groups.


Slavery
, in a word. It is the last - I hope - remnant of our PRO slavery constitution of 1787. Those same provisions have by serendipity served the selfish economic interests of the Rich & Famous. R&Fs. In the infamous 1896 Plessey v. Ferguson* case, the US Supreme Court said to the states, “YOU may ignore Section 1 of the 14th Amendment” which was a valiant attempt by Congress to make a truly UNITED US of A. See Note 1. The 14th Amendment portended the fulfillment of the PROMISE so grandly expressed in the Preamble of our Constitution. But it has not yet been accomplished! And is constantly resisted by the states. See Note 2.

*Infamous because it gave its approval to Jim Crow
, the wave of post Civil War terrorism that subjugated America’s long suffering blacks to economic servitude until undone in 1954 in Brown v. Topeka. The dastardly effects of which - Jim Crow - linger on in America to this very day! It made heroes of the Ku Klux Klan! To our everlasting shame.

reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


I think we're going to see this issue tested out at some point in this calendar year. I really don't see how its legal for a political party to decide which delegates get seated from which States. I would be just as mad if the GOP had done the same, or similar. It's up to the individual States to decide when they vote, and it needs to be that way.


Rant. Well, to put my view in a few words, I’d take away all powers from the states leaving them merely as zip codes. The states have never made any contribution to benefit the POOR or the DISADVANTAGED. The states offer succor and surcease to the Rich and Famous ONLY. And in the process have denied the civil rights of millions of Americans world without end. IF we could abolish the states as political entities, we’d save between 20% and 33% of all taxes paid by our citizens. And make ourselves a better county in the doing! But alas, it would disenfranchise the fringe and freak groups. Heaven forbid. End.

It is not only impractical to re-run the FL and MI primaries, it works not well to either of the two last standing candidates. Hillary won both, especially in FL. She cannot afford to put herself up for a re-run. Even if she won both by slim margins, it would be considered a LOSS for her. And, since the Dems are using proportional allotment of delegates, Obama still got 2/5ths of FL and 3/7th of MI delegates. What does he stand to gain versus what is at risk if he does WORSE in either state. No, the ONLY solution is for the Dems to allocate the Fl and MI delegates 50/50 to the two major candidate and for God’s Sake, if not mine, MOVE ON!


At this late date, nobody is going to be made "happy." Even if Mr. Dean does what you suggest, the Dems are on their way towards a power grab that would make any carpet-bagging Republican jealous.


I am surprised, nay, taken aback! I have known all my adult life that the primaries were the private property of their respective political parties. That is deeply ensconced in state laws. I took it for granted everyone shared that insight. And yes, and not surprising the MSM are hyping it for all the ratings they can get. The 2 Bush Brothers are laughing all the time! And the Dems are wringing their hands! If we banned Nielson from the MSM, we'd get more information and a lot less heat.


Note 1.
14th Amend. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Note 2.
Preamble: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. US Con.

Bold are my own.

[edit on 3/11/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 11 2008 @ 10:00 AM
link   
I could certainly take issue with a great deal of what you've said there, but I'll be satisfied with saying that I disagree. Today, the folks in Mississippi are having their say. That might not matter to some, but it matters to me.

I am not for Obama, but I want him to have a fair hearing. We will never have a perfected electoral system. Somebody will always be unhappy with thing as they are. I'm probably going to be one of those who is unhappy with what the Democrats do to the electoral system, once they take power.

I think Hillary Clinton has one thing in commn with Elliot Spitzer. They are both victims of their own hubris.

It's true that the two parties do fiddle with State primaries. When possible, they make the "closed." I never did like that. Still don't. As a citizen, I want open primaries where you can vote for whomever you please. Primaries are closed here in Alaska, and I do write to my local paper about that every now and then.

If I had my way (for some insane reason), I'd mandate that all primaries would be open, and they'd all be held on the same single day.



posted on Mar, 11 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   
That's an intersting new signature you have there, Don. Robert Service. "The cremation of Sam McGee." Once upon a time, I used to know it word for word, line for line. If you ever saw my parka, you know that I go to great lengths to avoid being cold.

[edit on 11-3-2008 by Justin Oldham]



posted on Mar, 12 2008 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Obama Wins Mississippi

Senator Barack Obama won yesterday’s primary in Mississippi. This victory erases the gains that Senator Clinton made in Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island. Obama remains out in front by a slim margin.

There was an interesting turn of events in Mississippi that I’d like to bring to your attention. It’s been estimated that up to 24% of the votes that went for Hillary Clinton came from Republicans who crossed over to cast their ballots for her. They were able to do this because Mississippi has an open primary, where anyone can vote using any party ballot that’s legal.

Nationally syndicated talk show host Rush Limbaugh has been encouraging Republicans in open primary States to muddy the waters by voting for Senator Clinton just to keep her in the race. This strategy isn’t new, but it is low and underhanded. I bring it to your attention because it is low and under handed. I’m not proud of the fact that my fellow Republicans are doing it.

This next week will be important to the future of the Democratic race. I can feel it in my gut. Clinton and Obama now face a six week fistfight ‘til the next primary is held in Pennsylvania. I’m all for an honest and spirited debate, but Hillary is acting like a spoiled brat who is trying to take the other kid’s toy.

Not only have I over-estimated her smarts, I’ve also under-estimated her greed. As I write this, Geraldine Ferrarro has resigned from Senator Clinton’s campaign finance committee. Gerladine was infamous back in 1980 for her pottie mouth, and her ability to slander anyone and everyone for no good reason. In recent days, she’s made remarks that were blatantly racist, and I won’t repeat them here. All I can say is that Geraldine has harmed yet one more political career.

Why has race become such a factor in this election? Senator Clinton grew up in an era when racism was still common. It’s not much of a factor for my own generation, but it was common in her day. The proof is right out in the open for all of us to see. She’s hasn’t totally shaken her past. Yes, I know she’s an elitist snob, but she’s clearly showing herself to be intolerant when it comes to the matter of race.

It’s ironic to me that she started in such a strong position to win the Presidency. Now, she’s being brought down by a base and low form of indoctrinated hate that no longer has a place in today’s world. For that reason, I am embarrassed. Once upon a time, I actually thought she was smart. I didn’t think she could lose. Now, all I want her to do is go away.

Ah, but….we need to see this thing through. For the sake of the nation, we need to let this thing run its course. Republicans have been learning many hard lessons in recent years. Now, its time fothe Dems to let go of their own ways in favor of a new outlook, and a new century. As a disabled person, I know first hand that there is no place in our society for the old hates. I disagree very much with Democrat philosophy, but I still want them to act like adults.

I’ll say my piece. If Obama or Hillary become our next President, I’ll continue to make my case with good manners and dignity. I will also recognize the fact that the election of either one will transform our society in ways that going to be good. It’s an interesting predicament. A better society in exchange for 8 years of bad politics. Can we survive it?



posted on Mar, 12 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Hmm what is the point of an Open Primary ?
If I'm not a member of a party I don't see how that gives me any right to decided on who leads the party in question or decided a party candidate.

As for eight years of bad politics in exchange for a better society I am reminded of LBJ Great Society agenda that seems to have more damage then good. If Obama is elected and he can create a less partisan environment form the ground up you will see both better politics and a better society. This will due to more then one mindset working together to solve problems.

Sure there are a lot of Ifs but that is my best answer for now. I have also haven't dealt the fact that what either of the three candidates have in mind wont match your ideas concerning the size of the Federal government.






[edit on 12-3-2008 by xpert11]



posted on Mar, 12 2008 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


Why has race become such a factor in this election? Senator Clinton grew up in an era when racism was still common. It’s not much of a factor for my own generation, but it was common in her day. It’s ironic to me that she started in such a strong position to win the Presidency. Now, she’s being brought down by a base and low form of indoctrinated hate that no longer has a place in today’s world. For that reason, I am embarrassed.


And just when I was about convinced that racism was behind us! Here I am in the “missing” generation. Born too late to be part of the Greatest Generation; born too early to be a Baby Boomer. (I’m thinking the greatest generation was born between 1905 and 1929, the baby boomers were born after 1945 to 1965. That puts us born from 1930 to 1945 as missing in action!) But I’ve lived in a two race America from my infancy until I had my epiphany in the late 1950s. I credit my mother for my easy move from having eyes but not seeing, to sharing by my empathy the cruelties heaped on long suffering and undeserving people by reason of their skin color alone.

I have warned the veneer covering racism in America is barely skin deep. I was ready to accept that the young and educated Americans voting for Obama were the NEW way of political life in the US of A. I stopped asking when they had their Damascus Road conversion. I took their vote on faith.

I still think they are voting for Obama because they think he is the best man for the job. I don’t know how many of them are out there. There are a lot of people who say they won’t come out on November 4. If we see racism rearing its ugly head inside the Dems, then GOD only knows what the GOP has in store for us in the infamous 527s they so much favor when the contest settles down to the real McCoy.


Once upon a time, I actually thought [Hillary] was smart. I didn’t think she could lose. Now, all I want her to do is go away. Ah, but …. we need to see this thing through. For the sake of the nation, we need to let this thing run its course. As a disabled person, I know first hand that there is no place in our society for the old hates. I disagree very much with Democrat philosophy, but I still want them to act like adults. I’m all for a spirited debate, but Hillary is acting like a spoiled brat who is trying to take the other kid’s toy. Not only have I over-estimated her smarts, I’ve also under-estimated her greed. It’s an interesting predicament. A better society in exchange for 8 years of bad politics. Can we survive it?


J/O, could you be confusing her urgency with excessive hubris? Let’s be real. No one in his or her right mind would run for president in the US of A. Many pundits say the next race begins on the day following the last race. The public part of this marathon began last January, 2007. This race will be 25 months long!

The Dems have had 20 debates. How much can you say when you get the same inane questions over and over? And you know you cannot afford to tell the truth. There are hot button issues out there. “Amnesty” is one. Americans are willfully stampeded by demagogues who imply they can somehow end 50 years of easy border crossing and return 12-20 million people back to their homes. Sweet Jesus!

Secure our borders goes the mantra. As if we have not been trying for decades. Ignorance may be bliss but it is a sad thing to base your vote on ignorance.



posted on Mar, 12 2008 @ 11:10 PM
link   
The saying that " there is such thing as an accident " springs to mind . Ferraro verbal blunder strikes me as pre planned and designed to stir up any underlying racism that exists . Racism is passed down the generations which makes it hard for society to eradicate it.



posted on Mar, 12 2008 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


Hmm what is the point of an Open Primary ? If I'm not a member of a party I don't see how that gives me any right to decided on who leads the party in question or decided a party candidate.


Americans want a strong leader who does the right thing and does not bother them about it.

Periodically we want to reform the existing system which has not been producing the desired results. A lot of American states were ONE party states. In some, in order to allow citizen participation, it was decided to allow voters to cross party lines.

I agree it is a silly idea but then, who says we do things rationally? It is destructive of political parties. I attribute this recent political phenomenon - anti party - to Republicans. They began to urge “vote the man” and not the party in Eisenhower’s first run, 1952. What works you like.


As for eight years of bad politics in exchange for a better society I am reminded of LBJ Great Society agenda that seems to have more damage then good.


Hmm? I find that odd, that you think the Great Society did more harm than good. Odd.


If Obama is elected and he can create a less partisan environment from the ground up you will see both better politics and a better society. This will due to more then one mind set working together to solve problems. Sure there are a lot of Ifs but that is my best answer for now. I have also haven't dealt the fact that what either of the three candidates have in mind wont match your ideas concerning the size of the Federal government.


On the size of government. What are you “little gov” guys thinking anyway? Eisenhower condemned the size of government, especially the military industrial complex. 1950s. Nixon promised smaller government. 1960s. Mr. Ford, being honest, did not offer an opinion. Reagan succeeded in gutting the regulatory part of the government but the overall total number of Federal employees rose during his 8 years. 1980s. Same with B41 and B43. 1990s and the 2000s. ALL Republicans PROMISE smaller government but EVERY Republican has given us larger government. And their followers keep on believing. Is it just possible that we cannot actually have fewer people in government? Or are ALL the GOPs lying?

On brotherly love, just remember that Obama is trying something like Jesus tried 2000 years ago. And he will no doubt have the same outcome.



posted on Mar, 12 2008 @ 11:49 PM
link   
OK I should have expanded on my point about Great Society more . Take the wide spread construction of state housing led to the slums that are around today . That is an example of bad policy and a better society don't mix.

The size of government is relative just as the notion of independent departments that run elections and other important functions . There are no absolutes take independent body's for example it is vital that a country judicial system and the running of elections are above political meddling . Beyond that we have the likes of Treasury that get used for political games.

I hold the aims rather then an idea as being more important. Rather then advocating(SP?) small government I aim for a mostly Libertarian stance on most social issues and no unnecessary regulation of the private sector.



posted on Mar, 13 2008 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


OK I should have expanded on my point about Great Society more. Take the wide spread construction of state housing led to the slums that are around today. That is an example of bad policy and a better society don't mix.


I can point to 2 housing projects built in the 1930s in my town of birth, Louisville, Ky, which are still used as homes by the people who live in them. In fact, some 20-30 years ago - probably under Reagan - the projects were “privatized” and sold off to the inhabitants for fairly arrived at prices on favorable terms. High quality construction from the beginning. Like most Federal government building in that era those houses were built to last. And last they have.

During the early post War 2 period, before the Great Society - 1964 - 1968 - we underwent a great slum clearance program in America. Urban Renewal it was called. It turned out to be a well thought out method of displacing the SLUM DWELLERS using the state's power of eminent domain. Ramshackle poorly maintained multistory rat trap apartments were overvalued to the benefit of the SLUM OWNERS who are NEVER slum dwellers. The net result was a bonanza for R&F landlords.

In my hometown city named above, several 10s of 1000s of centrally located slum apartments were razed. In their place are now standing tall office buildings interrupted with small parks and usually owned by out of town banks. But no apartments were built there for the poor. Those people had to leave to make room for businesses. No aid for them.

Due to bank “blue lining” as it was called in Louisville - “red lining” elsewhere - the mainly black inhabitants were displaced into the nearest declining neighborhood. Rental prices rose sharply! Blue lining was the practice NOT to loan money for home purchases in such neighborhoods as were so identified. Commercial loans were of course available. This meant in practice that blacks could not finance the houses they were to live in, but that well-to-do whites could borrow on the same house as a commercial venture. This practice guaranteed non-ownership and continued to keep black people in subjection to white exploitation. Even though that practice is generally outdated in 2008, the adverse effects linger on even to this day, 2008.

The Great Society had nothing to do with the barracks type public housing so popular just after War 2. The ultimate of such mentality of housing the poor was manifest in the high rise projects of Chicago and St. Louis which became notorious for the crime and social disasters those buildings created. Lack of adequate policing was also a strong contributor. Filled disproportionally with poor people, confined in close quarters was a major factor in the socially destructive projects. We don’t do that anymore. But OTOH, only about 20% of the people eligible - by income levels - are in public housing. The bane of the “private investor.” Investor is an oxymoron when used in this context.

I do believe that right will ultimately triumph, and because I do believe I am on the right side, I do persevere.

[edit on 3/13/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 13 2008 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Originally Justin Oldham

I’m all for an honest and spirited debate, but Hillary is acting like a spoiled brat who is trying to take the other kid’s toy.


I think its more like she's the child saying: But I had it first now give it back and he's saying No its my turn now stop hitting me. And pretty soon they're both going to scream MOM!!! Unless Obama can do more high road reaction as he has with the Ferrarro incident. The high road isn't open to Hillary any more with her posturing since Ohio.


Originally Justin Oldham

Why has race become such a factor in this election? Senator Clinton grew up in an era when racism was still common. It’s not much of a factor for my own generation, but it was common in her day.


I think race was always there waiting to come out. And I'm not so sure racisim hasn't and isn't still an issue -- both in this election process and in our country. I'm from a small rural American town. When it came time to go to college there were scholarships I seemed qualified for except that I'm not black. I ended up sophmore year with a roomate who is. I observed her using racisim as an excuse to turn in substandard work -- I would never generalize this trait but its the excuse that bothered me. Her boyfriend was a very militant person whom I always look back at and see how knowing each other was otherwise unlikely except under the circumstances. In the end we learned quite alot from each other. And I'm glad for this. But as a result I know that racism is still here even when we least expect it in ourselves -- and dare I say it goes both ways.


Originally Justin Oldham

I’ll say my piece. If Obama or Hillary become our next President, I’ll continue to make my case with good manners and dignity. I will also recognize the fact that the election of either one will transform our society in ways that going to be good. It’s an interesting predicament. A better society in exchange for 8 years of bad politics. Can we survive it?


Agreed. With any luck we'll all learn manners and respect for individual dignity as a result.



posted on Mar, 13 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


The size of government is relative . . There are no absolutes . . it is vital that a country judicial system and the running of elections are above political meddling.


1) Correct on size. We need to staff the government bureaucracies with adequate numbers sufficiently trained so that a satisfactory balance between delivery of services and cost is reached. The Inspector General of the Department of Defense has 75 auditors in Iraq monitoring 180,000 contracts totaling over $30 b. He says he needs 2000 to do a proper job. Reagan Revolution.

2) Almost every jurisdiction, federal, state, county and municipal, is short of judges. And clerks. And bailiffs. Social security disability claimants are forced to wait as long as 2 years in some districts, to have their cases heard by an ALJ. Administrative Law Judge. Justice delayed is justice denied.

3) Every state - all 50 - have their own peculiar laws on elections. All of those states - to my best knowledge - actually codify the rules of the two major parties. My old state of KY has 3, 400 precincts. In each precinct to run the election, are 3 state officers. A judge, a clerk and a sheriff. The jobs are interchangeable.

In addition, any registered political party is allowed one Challenger at each precinct. A person who can “challenge” anyone’s right to vote. KY has a very good system. Usually within one and a half to two hours afer the polls closed, the final results are in. There is an absolute paper trail. Unlike Florida which must perform a precinct recount if the difference between the top 2 candidates is less than 1% of the votes cast, in Ky a “re-canvas” can be had on request.

A re-canvas means to check the dials on each voting machine in the district to be sure it was accurately reported and counted. A “re-count” OTOH is a case where each ballot is examined individually and counted against the total. This must be paid for in advance by the candidate asking for the re-count, the fee based on the number of votes cast. .


Rather then advocating small government I aim for a mostly Libertarian stance on most social issues and no unnecessary regulation of the private sector.


X11 says, “I am for . . on most social issues . . no unnecessary regulation . . “ I believe this leaves enough room to drive a truck through? I can live with this!

[edit on 3/13/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 13 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Don see your inbox for my reply.

Cheers xpert11.



posted on Mar, 13 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   


Pavlova is named after Russian ballerina who is connected with its introduction in this part of the world. As the name suggests Anzac Biscuits either first originated in either Australia or New Zealand.


Grrr... don't get me started xpert11, ha ha


Who cares ?
I'll eat Australian Pavlova ... so long as they make it with yummy New Zealand cream. Otherwise it's war!

As for the Florida thing wasn't that election moved up by the republicans ?

What is clear is that it isn't democracy to allow the original result to stand as Obama did not have his name on the ticket at Michigan and did not campaign in Florida because it was known in advance that it would not count.

You would have to start from scratch. Not merely accept the results of a flawed election.

What bother's me is Clinton's willingness to rewrite the rules and shift goal posts to suit her own objectives.

That speaks volumes about the lady's shifting ethics.



posted on Mar, 13 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by sy.gunson
I'll eat Australian Pavlova ... so long as they make it with yummy New Zealand cream. Otherwise it's war!


Ladies and Gentlemen the never ending war.

If I had my way I would be eating NZ ice cream on an Australian beach.

Anyway its nice to have a fellow kiwi contributing on this thread.


As for the Florida thing wasn't that election moved up by the republicans ?


You are correct Don explains the details here . The Republicans could pull this trick because some how federal primary's are run at state level or something like that.


What is clear is that it isn't democracy to allow the original result to stand as Obama did not have his name on the ticket at Michigan and did not campaign in Florida because it was known in advance that it would not count.


People voting at the polls shouldn't be confused with democracy in the US. The US is some kind of warped Republic . Michigan and Florida may vote again.



That speaks volumes about the lady's shifting ethics.


It may be a case of Hillary flip flopping on what she thinks should happen to suit herself rather then her rewriting the rules. Never the less I couldn't agree more with your conclusion .



posted on Mar, 13 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   


People voting at the polls shouldn't be confused with democracy in the US. The US is some kind of warped Republic . Michigan and Florida may vote again.


Actually there are some things I like about the American primaries because they test the candidates in a way that our system doesn't before you vote for them in the election which counts.

The American system isn't perfect, but it's better than having a virtual stranger appointed by a party without consulting the people.

There have been many surprises in the NZ system when Politicians have unveiled personal agendas after elections that were never disclosed beforehand.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join