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.

 

Choices on Ballot for Michigan Democratic Primary: Hillary or Uncommitted

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   
This link is a pdf of the official listing of candidates in the Michigan primary elections. Note on the Democratic side as you scroll down to the lower half of the page that everyone but Hillary is either withdrawn or not a factor.

How does this amount to a choice? After Hillary's dubious win in NH yesterday, she's now being given a walk-over in Michigan? You have got to be kidding me!

Michigan was stripped of its delegates by the Democratic Party for moving its primary to Jan. 15.



Democratic leaders voted Saturday to strip Michigan of all its delegates to the national convention next year as punishment for scheduling an early presidential primary in violation of party rules.

In spite of the vote, some party leaders and officials said they believed the delegates would eventually be seated at the convention.

Michigan officials anticipated the action by the Democratic National Committee's rules panel. But Michigan Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer said before the vote that he didn't think the delegates would be lost for good. He expects the nominee will insist the state's delegates be seated at the convention.

source


How is that supposed to work? Whomever ends up with the nomination gets all the delegates after the fact? That would make Michigan's Democratic primary inconsequential, or else a big boost for Hillary without any competition. That isn't fair, and it doesn't make any sense. But then, neither does much of anything to do with US politics anymore these days.


[edit on 9-1-2008 by Icarus Rising]




posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   
The question is, what the rest of the candidates running against Hillary has to say about this.

And more so, what the people of the state been in the issue has to say about it.

Is our nation so numb that they will just sit and let things like this happen?

Then what in the hell we have primaries for?

Just put dumb and dumber at the ballot and don't even bother with appointing them to any political party and be done with dumb as the president and dumber as he vice president.


And the people doesn't understand or want to believe that our political system could be corruped.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Lol, punishment, my foot. They just came up with that so-called 'punishment' to shoo-in Clinton. I can't imagine Obama and Edwards not balking about this one because it's completely unfair to them and the rest of the Democratic candidates. How much more of this ridiculousness do we have to take?



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 04:35 PM
link   
All the Dems could have filed to be on the primary, most decided to withdraw. The Democratic party is trying to invalidate the will of the people of Michigan by not seating their Delegates even though the people of Michigan decided when to hold the election themselves. It really is a strange situation. Bet Obama wishes he kept his name in the hat in Michigan.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Palasheea
Lol, punishment, my foot. They just came up with that so-called 'punishment' to shoo-in Clinton. I can't imagine Obama and Edwards not balking about this one because it's completely unfair to them and the rest of the Democratic candidates. How much more of this ridiculousness do we have to take?


Why is it unfair to the rest of the field? Just because they decided themselves to withdraw from the Michigan primary? It's their own dang fault IMO. What is more unfair, not representing the will of an entire State or a pity party for the candidates that failed to stand up to their own Party machine? I'll tell you if I were a Democrat in Michigan and someone told me my vote didn't count, I'd tell that Party where to stick it.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Well does leave the option for Michigan Dems to vote Uncommited to show a "No Confidence" vote towards Hillary. This would be great political ammo for Obama as well as the final Republican (and/or Independant) canidate(s) during the election debates.

It could also impact other primary elections as to how the people of Michigan feel towards Hillary.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 08:07 PM
link   
It seems the other Democratic candidates have basically conceded Michigan to Hillary for the time being, at least until the convention. The party machine in Michigan seems confident their delegates will be seated. I'm curious to see how many come in "Uncommitted."



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 08:14 PM
link   
the state demo party tried to pull a fast one by moving up the primary.
the national demo party said NO YOU DONT. state did anyway, so at
the behest of the national demo party, several demo-contenders
will not participate in michigan. the state party will use every demo
vote for hillary....we, the voters are pissed.. I REFUSE TO VOTE
BECAUSE OF THE STATE DEMO LEADERSHIP........mark brewer.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by last time here
 


Ummm. Mark, Did you vote for those State Dems that are causing you such fits? Then I suggest you look in the mirror. Are you contending that the DNC is aganst Hillary Clinton and that only the Michigan Democrats are for her? Maybe they are closet Republicans too.

The People of Michigan, through their respective parties, decided to move up their primary, what exactly is the problem with that? I just don't see what the issue is with that, enlighten me. Quite honestly, I am more "pissed" that a national party is telling a State what they can and can't do. Maybe we should just say "yes Master, as you wish". And I'm not even a Democrat here in Michigan.

Personally I have more of a problem with the Super Tuesday event Feb 5th, which basically really decides the candidates in one fell swoop. Maybe everyone should just have their primary on the same day. Would that be better?





[edit on 9-1-2008 by pavil]

[edit on 9-1-2008 by pavil]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   
I don't think the DNC is against Hillary. It looks like just the opposite, and Michigan played right into their hands with this showdown over primary relevance.

I think holding all primaries on the same day might be a good idea. After all, the general election is held nation-wide on the same day. Why should Iowa and New Hampshire get such preferential treatment?



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   
The main problem with the all on one day primary would be that the candidtates would only focus on the "big vote" States, ignoring much of the country. If were were to go to a one day primary, all States should be equally represented, and that's not really fair either.

I personally like the few States at a time approach as it allows a candidate to actually try to "court" a State and build up a resume for the nation to view. Look at Guillini, he's blown off all of the first few States, banking on a Super Tuesday landslide.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Icarus Rising
 


I hate to say it, but it makes perfect sense. They're getting us used to not having a choice. Whenever the American people actually USE democracy to force their will on the parties, the parties change the rules so that it can't happen again.

Bush 41 stole the VP spot out from under Ford in 1980, so they tightened the primary system and ended the era of dramatic surprises at the conventions.

Perot did too well in the debates, so they took control of the debates so they could disallow anyone they wanted.


Then there was this year:

1. They had to kick Stephen Colbert off of the SC ballot because he might have gotten enough support from certain demographics to affect the outcome. They got away with it because he was a stunt candidate, but they know they have to be worried about a serious candidate coming along who has the same appeal- what if there was a Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich who came with Colbert's built in popularity and ability to command support independent of reason? Would people sit idly by while such a candidate was thrown out?

2. They've got Obama- a virtual nobody who they party never intended to make President, growing too big for his britches because he's got a way with average Americans, and Hillary will probably beat him but it's taking way too much money and way too much dirt.

3. They're probably getting sick of having to be so religious. This problem has been getting worse and worse since 1996 and now it's getting in the way of some of their pre-approved "front-runners" (like Romney) and making top-tier candidates out of people like Huckabee who were supposed to die fast and quiet.


So they're putting up trial balloons for rigging the primaries. And those balloons are flying very well. Nobody seems that upset about having it waved in their face that the party has a right to the ballot, and asks us who we want on it only as a courtesy.

This trend will continue in future elections, probably culminating in a national primary where all states are allowed to hold a non-binding primary on a single day "to see where they stand" before the process begins. This will end political life for candidates who arent either already widely known or who can't afford national TV campaigns.

Delegates earned in these primaries will probably only be loosely pledged- probably obligated to switch from minor candidates to major candidates, split in the same proportion as unpledged delegates split, thus giving the final say to a few hand-picked party big wigs at the convention, but under a system that the average American won't immediately understand and thus won't question.

To make a long story short- they are now planning to make it where we really do have to choose between the puppet on the right and the puppet on the left.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Good points.

In today's mass media driven system, though, it wouldn't be too hard for candidates to use televised debates, and print, radio, and TV advertising to overcome the challenge of reaching all the electorate with their platforms and opinions prior to a unified primary.

The way the system is set up now, it seems the candidates are taking advantage of an opportunity to "test the waters" so to speak, to see which lies have the best legs, which lies dupe the most people into believing they will actually live up to their rhetoric. The candidates take their act on the road, gauge crowd and media response and adjust their lies accordingly. Witness everyone jumping on the "change" bandwagon after it served Obama so well in Iowa....



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Witness everyone jumping on the "change" bandwagon after it served Obama so well in Iowa....


I know. That really sickened me how everyone one suddenly was for "change", whatever that might be or mean. I am a career politican, but I am all for change.... yeah right. Give me a break.

God Forbid Ron Paul wins a primary, then everyone will be a Constitutionalist and actually start carrying it with them. What a shocker that would be.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Icarus Rising
 


Not hard for those with money, but since they can exclude whoever they want from debates and lets face it, most Americans seem to have lost their love of reading, it sets a huge financial cutoff on who can be a serious contender.

Would we even still know that Bill Richardson was alive right now if it weren't for the fact that they published his (disappointing) results from the early primaries? Under the system I think they are moving towards, his 5% would go straight to Hillary, and NH (and other states) would no longer even be considered close between her and Obama.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Isn't there already a huge financial cutoff on who can be a serious contender? It is almost as if fundraising is more important than campaigning.

I would be all for public funding of election campaigns if there was a way to eliminate special interest lobbies from the equation and give all the prospective candidates a level financial playing field. As things stand, the candidate who raises the most money generally wins and then is beholden to special interests when he/she takes office.

How is that supposed to work to serve the best interests of the people? All it really does is serve the best interests of the rich people who bought off the winning candidate.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Sorrry if this has been previously shown, but I was surfing around tonight and fell into this interesting piece.

Just what exactly does a flag with inverted stars mean? Here are photos from Hillary's website with the inverted stars in the back ground.

It does bring to mind Obama's refusal to place his hand over his heart during the pledge of allegiance.

I am getting really mad and even scared for our very near future with this kind of crap happening and people just rally round as if it makes them resistant to what is coming down the pike straight at them.

Seriously though, what does it mean?
www.rumormillnews.com...




[edit on 16-1-2008 by antar]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 11:37 PM
link   
I don't know why she would have a flag like that. The obvious explanation is creepy. Maybe she's going after the satanist, luciferian crowd. I don't know. I don't like it.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
I don't know why she would have a flag like that. The obvious explanation is creepy. Maybe she's going after the satanist, luciferian crowd. I don't know. I don't like it.


Now that was my thought too but I just wanted others opinions first. What is up with that? I just do not get it, I voted for Bill, yes, that was then, but I just do not understand how things have become so apparent to me yet look at the faces of the people or sheeple in the crowd, do they see it? Do they even notice the flags stars are inverted? I dont know I am getting scared.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 01:08 AM
link   
All I can say is I hope it is some kind of hoax or upsidedown flag banner. I am not a supporter of the Clinton campaign. It is hard for me to think this was done on purpose and she wants the satanist vote. The world has turned into a strange place, though. Or maybe it has been this way all along and has just become more blatant and noticeable to me lately.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join