Harold Ickes Just Accused the DNC of Hijacking Democracy!, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 31-5-2008 @ 06:29 PM by LateApexer313
reply to post by jamie83



Hiyah Jamie...

I was watching too, and yeah he sure was P.O.'d l..but I can't say I blame him, the crowd was restless and fired up too, I was ready to yell HAR-old HAR-old HAR-old.

Yes, like you said, so much for unity!! LOL. I'd have paid money to be there the night before when the wine was flowing and so were the tempers


reply posted on 31-5-2008 @ 06:32 PM by LateApexer313
reply to post by ufo reality



Yes, it's RIDICULOUS, if you're mad think how mad the people in Florida and Michigan are! If they think voter turnout was low before, wait until they see it after this whole fiasco.


reply posted on 31-5-2008 @ 08:11 PM by jamie83
Originally posted by hinky
The states knew there would be penalties for having a convention too early, and Florida and Michigan went ahead and held their's knowing full well the outcome. Their votes shouldn't be counted and no delegates should be seated at all. It's called rules.


No, you should really do some research before spouting off from an ill-informed position.

The DNC reached an agreement with Michigan before they held the primaries. Part of the agreement was that New Hampshire had to play be the rules too. Problem was, New Hampshire moved up their primary, but the DNC awarded New Hampshire a waiver from obeying the rules!

So then Michigan went ahead and moved up their primary because the agreement was broken by New Hampshire. The DNC penalized Michigan, but not New Hampshire.


Obama's name wasn't even on Michigan's ballot, how is that fair to him. He followed the rules. Clinton is just.... never mind TOS comes to mind and there may be minors reading this message.


Are you serious???? You can't be serious. Are you really serious????

Obama took his name off the ballot in Michigan to PANDER to the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire because of the controversy over New Hampshire and Iowa keeping their standing as the only states allowed to hold early primaries. Obama VOLUNTARILY removed his name from the Michigan ballot so he could benefit in the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, which he did!

There was NO RULE that had anything to do with Obama keeping his name on the ballot or not. There was no rule that Clinton broke keeping her name on the ballot. Obama gamed the system. 600,000 people voted in Michigan and their votes were just thrown under the bus. 55 delegates were awarded to Obama without him receiving a SINGLE vote in Michigan. How can you assign delegates based on what you THINK would have happened?


Don't agree to them and then disagree after you figure out the other team can score also. That's not how you play, and that isn't how a real leader is elected.


No, that's not what happened at all. That's how the Obama camp spun the story, and people who don't pay attention believed it without doing any research.

New Hampshire broke the rules! And New Hampshire was rewarded by allowing to have the first primary in the country. It's total bs and stinks to high heaven. You can't seriously characterize this bastardization of democracy with any reference to RULES. This election was manipulated, far worse than anything that was alleged in 2000.


reply posted on 31-5-2008 @ 09:06 PM by hinky
reply to post by jamie83



Okay, you from Florida or Michigan.... Halfling!


reply posted on 31-5-2008 @ 10:28 PM by jamie83
Originally posted by coven
The only B.S. of the whole situation is

1)Michigan developing a superiority complex and demanding that they be the FIRST to decide who runs for president.


No, you have it backwards. The problem comes from New Hampshire and Iowa demanding that they maintain their status as being the first states to hold a caucus and primary respectively.

Michigan never demanded they be the first to decide. Iowa was Jan. 3, New Hampshire Jan. 8, and Michigan Jan. 15.

The real story about way they had to punish Michigan was because it was SOUTH CAROLINA who complained and was allowed to move up their primary to before Feb. 5, and then Michigan jumped in front of South Carolina. The real issue here involved race. South Carolina was chosen to move up their primary because they argued that a "black" state should go early, When Michigan jumped South Carolina, the DNC had to punish them.




2) Michigan not having Obama on the ballot leaving 200,000 plus michiganders with no option but Hillary or undecided.

Simple solution, Don't count the votes from Michigan as they felt it necessary to create their own rules for this election cycle.


Um, it wasn't Michigan's fault that Obama wasn't on the ballot. Obama took his name off the ballot to show support for those in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada because those states complained enough to be given special treatment. By taking his name off in Michigan, he pandered to the voters in other states, and benefited from the pandering.



If Florida rushed their vote the same decision should be made.

If people don't want to be equals they don't have to... but forcing superiority when their is none does have a tendency to have a reactionary punishment (i.e. not having votes counted, as they were cast before the determined date of the vote)



That might make sense if Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada weren't given special treatment.

The bottom line is this. The DNC did NOT enforce their own rules, and instead gave Obama delegates from Michigan when he wasn't even on the ballot. That's not in accordance with any legal principal. It's certainly not what the "Rules" Committee should have done. They should have enforced the rules, right?


reply posted on 31-5-2008 @ 10:38 PM by coven
reply to post by jetxnet


Good point.

I personally think no one should be awarded delegates and the DNC should be forthright enough with the people of michigan and florida to inform they need to elect NEW party heads, and leadership, until these states are willing to work with the rest of the nation... After all that is the entire purpose of this process.

I do agree it's a bit skevy that the DNC went ahead and gave him the delegates... BUT I believe it was done because even without any awarded it was IMPOSSIBLE for Obama to lose the nomination. I believe the conspiracy here is that the DNC saw a chance to legitimize a process that has been flawed for years. That process being the division and requirements on delegate numbers.

Until we return to a "one vote for" equals an "actual vote" (as opposed to an electoral majority) I have a feeling this is going to occur in every presidential election.

Coven
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^