GatorB

Um so the REPUBLICAN controlled Florida legislature and the REPUBLICAN governor decided they would change the date of the DEMOCRATIC primary and somehow the DEMOCRATS in florida should be punished? please explain. seriously what could the democrats in florida have done to stop the change? NOTHING.

theking

My point is in the statement that I made.

__________________
When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me!

FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

GatorB

Well Iowa and NH shouldn't count since they were even earlier than Florida then.

Obama DID NOT have to take himself off the ballot. He CHOSE to do so. And now he wants delegates he DID NOT earn. Pretty damn simple, if he kept his name on the ballot the Mich issue would have been a lot more simpler to solve.

theking

In reality they could have not voted for the Republican Bill that the move up date had been appended to...but they decided that the Bill itself was more important than the Republican appendage to move up the date for the primary. They did try to ammend the Bill to move the date back but the Republicans voted the ammendment down.

__________________
When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me!

FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

baddog

Good to see you have a clear grasp of the facts. What an idiot.

GatorB

You realize the republicans controlled the legisature which means they didn't need the dems vote. They had enough votes.

kane

But the candidates were allowed to campaign in those states, they were not allowed to campaign in Florida, that is the big deal.



He was simply doing as the DNC rules instructed. Here is a quote. ""This is an extension of the pledge we made, based on the rules that the DNC laid out," Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said in a statement. "We still hope that Michigan Democrats can adopt a process that meets DNC rules and, if so, look forward to fighting for the votes of men and women across the state." So basically he and the other cadidates did as the DNC wanted and Hillary chose to ignore them. Why should he be punished for following the rules of the party and why should she be rewarded for not doing so?

theking

That is true if the Bill only required a simple majority and I don't know that it did...maybe you do.

__________________
When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me!

FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

selena

I don't know, to be perfectly honest. I don't know enough about the demographics of either state to know which way it would have gone had they had a 'normal' primary.

Like you, it's not an issue I'll lose sleep over. I surely won't vote for her in November if she is the candidate. Him? Maybe.

It is interesting to watch play out though.

__________________
~
Doer of Things at
MetArtMoney
Where Flawless Beauty Meets Art
~The MetArt Network ~
selena.delgado9

notoldschool

Because he has no clue what hes talking about.

__________________
No doubt one may quote history to support any cause, as the devil quotes scripture.
-- Learned Hand

http://www.bjpenn.com

GatorB

They CHOSE not to campaign, they were not prevented. And if so who cares. In most primary years 2/3 of the states never see a single candidate from either party yet the votes counted. In Montana Romney was the only candidate that showed up so I guess thatw as unfair to McCain that Romney got more delgates in that state than McCain? So the results of Montana should not have counted because McCain CHOSE not to show up? This is your logic?

In 2012 you will not see a SINGLE candidate from either party go to Alaska. I guess that state's results shouldn't count since nobody campaigned there. You don't need to go to a state to campaign. Especially today. Are you telling me nobody in Florida heard of Obama by the end of January? And that by going to Florida that would have made him more known? hardly.

baddog

Do you stop to read what you type before you hit submit?

Yes, many small states with very few delegate see little campaigning. FL and MI are two states that will NEVER have that issue.

Tempest

The entire thing was fucked up and there's no correct solution so arguing about it is useless... What's really insane to me is that the opposite party can fuck over the other one in their primary.. i.e Florida.

kane

Sure they chose not to campaign there, but they were basically told by the DNC not to do it and back in August of 07 they signed a pledge to not campaign in those states as part of the punishement. So they had a choice. Defy the leadership of their party and campaign there, or do as they wish and not go there. So should they defy the party which will help them raise money and campaign in the fall? Do you just bite the hand that feeds you?

If a candidate choose not to go to a state that is their choice and if they win or lose that state it is their fault. If, however, they urged not to go there by their party it is a whole different story.

baddog

Actually, there is more to the story than the Obama supporters want you to know. I am not knowledgeable enough about the details, but I am pretty sure this was added as a trailer of another bill that everyone was in favor of.

potter

__________________

tony286

If the people dont like the rules, then vote out the few that made that choice. The only reason this matters is because clinton is losing if she wasnt she wouldnt give a shit.

Tempest

Full paper trail for all votes.. Not sure if there was more in there or not... Regardless, It's a Republican Governor and a Republican controlled house so even if the dems had voted against it based on the primary date change, it probably wouldn't have changed anything...

Rochard

Rules are rules - period. This isn't the general election, and the DNC is only going by their own rules. Both of them failed to campaign there, and one of them wasn't even on the ticket. You can't do this to a candidate after he was told none of those votes would count.

Hillary is pushing for this because if the votes were counted in full as they are now she would stand to gain.

With the way they voted this afternoon it put Obama closer to victory and narrowed the gap for Hillary. Hillary pushed for this and she got screwed out of it.

You watch. She'll be appealing this because if you can't win fairly, well then, you need to bend the rules.

But that's not to say that I'm for Obama either.

__________________
“The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.”
- Sarah Huckabee Sanders

Snake Doctor

The 50% rule makes sense.

It is the same solution the republicans used.

This issue isn't about a particular candidate or even a particular election. The fact of the matter is that if there is no sanction against states who move their primaries up in violation of the rules, states will be constantly leapfrogging each other and the first primary will be in June or something.

There has to be some sort of penalty or else it will be chaos in 2012.

The "we need these states in the general so don't disenfranchise the voters" argument doesn't hold water, because as I said before the republicans cut the FL and MI delegates by 50% as a penalty for moving up as well.

__________________
sig too big

GatorB

Here's great solution don't let 4 little piss ant states decide the contests. Hell candidates drop out after Iowa and NH even though less than 1% of voters have voted. I do NOT see anywhere in the Constitution where Iowa and NH should come first. Fuck them. Florida and Mich are more representative of the US as a whole than those Iowa adn NH.

Do you think this penalty is going to stop Florida and Mich and others from moving up in 2012? hell no. Now the DNC has set a precedent for the penalty they can continue to start early. So what they cut delegates in half. Florida will still has more delegates than Iowa, NH, SC and NM combined and candidates will now be able to campaign in Florida in 2012.

Snake Doctor

Interesting wrinkle in today's proceedings.

From http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/

__________________
sig too big

GatorB

Are you running for Presdient of the DNC or of ALL of AMERICA? I'd be 10X more likely to support a candidate that told his own party to go fuck themselves and their retarded rules.

GetSCORECash

they should be seated. Because I voted, and I want my vote to count!

__________________

GatorB

*** UPDATE *** Also, according to those with knowledge of the Michigan agreement, it is fair to claim Clinton the winner of Michigan. But they caution against counting her popular vote in the state.

well after tomorrow not even even counting Mich she'll have more votes since florida now officially counts

Snake Doctor

I don't know why I'm bothering to respond to you because you haven't been even close to reasonable during this entire debate.

However, I will say this.

The reason small states are allowed to go first is that if California was first, or New York was first, only candidates with a shitload of money would have a chance. If all 50 states went at the same time, it would be the same scenario.

Small states like New Hampshire require retail politics to win. You can't just blanket the state with an ad buy, you have to get out and meet the voters and tell your story. That way everyone has a chance. (Like say governors that nobody has heard of from small states like Arkansas or Georgia)

Also, your argument that you don't like the rules so therefore there should be no penalty for people who break the rules isn't very persuasive.

I'm also pretty sure that if FL and MI try to pull this again in 2012 the penalty will be more severe. So your argument that "so what if it's 50% we still have alot of delegates" doesn't hold much water either.

If you want the rules changed there's a process for that. (and the rules did change some this year with South Carolina and Nevada being allowed to go before Super Tuesday)
You don't break the rules and then ask them to be changed afterwards to suit your purposes....otherwise, it's chaos.

__________________
sig too big

baddog

and there you have it

Snake Doctor

Actually that's a negative.

Popular Vote (w/FL) Obama 17,266,433 48.3% Clinton 17,100,677 47.8% Obama +165,756 +0.5%

And these popular vote totals that she keeps claiming don't count Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine, because they have caucuses and don't release popular vote counts. Obama won 3 of those 4 by very healthy margins.

If the popular vote was what counted in the nominating process Obama would have spent all of his time and money trying to get more votes in the big states and big cities and would have ignored the small caucus states.
Since delegates nominate he based his strategy on how to obtain the most delegates, and he was successful at that.

You can't change the rules after the game is over and declare yourself the winner.

__________________
sig too big

tony286

GatorB

reasonable? I'm using FACTS and LOGIC. I don't have a dog in this race I'm not for either candidate. That makes me the MOST reasonable

Isn't that what happened this year and every year? Obama had the most money he's first. Hillary had the 2nd most money she's 2nd. Edwards had the 3rd most he came in 3rd.

So. Then how come we don't do the general election this way? Isn't it unfair to small states?


please that means shit. I'm not voting for a guy because he came to town. Wesley Clark was the only dem that came to my town in 2004. I still voted for Edwards. Having a guy tell you bullshit in person makes a difference to you?

Are you retarded? seriously. If was the Florida GOP that violated the rules. You are blaming the VICTIM.

Not if they don't change the rules before then.

the whole nomination process is reatrded. maybe thats why I'm leaning libertarian this year. fuck the two party retards.

Snake Doctor

http://www.jabberwonk.com/flinker.cfm?cliid=zydzt

I rest my case.

__________________
sig too big

Snake Doctor

Wow, you're really an idiot. I'm not even gonna bother responding point by point because you'll just come back with more tortured attempts at logic to try and defend your ridiculous positions.

The good news about this is that I finally agree with baddog about something. I knew that would happen eventually.

__________________
sig too big

GatorB

You play a lot of what ifs? I use WHAT DIDs.

You don't get it that I couldn't give 2 shits about Hillary.

GatorB

I don't care about Clinton I am not a Clinton supporter you fucking idiot. if a retard got hit on the head and became even more retarded you would still be more retarded than him.

GatorB

No YOU are the idiot. You support Obama so any that doesn't jibe with him being "correct" and being the legitimate "winner" is wrong. YOU have bias. I don't. My points are in fact logical. I'm not biased unlike you. You are right it's pointless to continue this discussion because I will never see you point of view. Why should I when I reached my conclusions logically? You however can not put you biases aside. You can type until your fingers fall off. I will not change my stance. you're trying to tell me 2+2=5 and I'm sorry it doesn't and none of your "reasons" is going to convince me it's anything other than 4.


because I don't agree with you doesn't make me an idiot. Is that what you used in high school debate class? You just called the other guy an idiot and that was your whole case?

Snake Doctor

Exactly, you had your mind made up before you ever entered the discussion, and no argument, no matter how logical, could change your enfeebled, slightly damaged mind.

Now you are on ignore. Buh-bye.

__________________
sig too big

GatorB

A) I though you were done talking to me.

B) if I know 2+2=4 there is no need for futher discussion.


I hope Obama loses in nov just to piss you off.

kane

I'm sure you would be more likely to vote for that person. There is a good chance I would too. Too bad you would probably never hear of them because once they told the party to fuck off how many members are going to help them out? forget the campaign, that you can get hired guns to help you with, but you need your party and the party members to raise money otherwise you won't be able to raise enough money to compete. Not to mention now that you have pissed off the party leaders and baring a miracle you have lost the election you are now in the shithouse with the party and your job (if you were already an elected official like a senator) just got a lot harder.

pocketkangaroo

You do know that conservative judges are very, very, very bad for our industry?

pocketkangaroo

On a matter of pure entertainment, I'd vote yes. It's kind of like the BCS in college football. I root for the scenario that causes the most chaos and makes the most people look stupid. The way primaries are setup are the most retarded conceopt that anyone could concoct. Superdelegates, caucuses, 30 some-odd primary dates. Just pick one day, give everyone in the party a ballot, the person with the most votes wins. Not exactly rocket science.

But technically speaking, they shouldn't be seated. You can't just change the rules in the middle of the fucking game. You can't just stop in the middle of a poker hand and say "sevens are wild". If people wanted those states seated, they should have bitched and moaned before the election process started. Yes it's not very democratic, but it's the rules the retarded party setup ahead of time.

pocketkangaroo

And this process has somehow stopped the guy with the most money from winning? Come on, the two candidates on the Dem side who had the most money are 1 and 2. Just like almost every primary in recent memory.

That process also basically says that only a few states matter. Half the candidates are out of the race by the time you get to Super Tuesday. Iowa and New Hampshire voters count much more than the rest of the country which is retarded.

baddog

Really? Care to cite an example of a conservative Supreme Court ruling that has had a negative affect on us? I can't think of any.

All the rulings I can think of worked in our favor.

tony286

The miller test my friend.

pussyserver - BANNED FOR LIFE

GOD you are so fuckin stupid it amazes me!!


Pro-Con: Was the Supreme Court?s child-porn ruling reasonable? NO
The Supreme Court upheld a law that sweeps too broadly in its attempt to ban child pornography, which is repellent and illegal. Those who traffic in it must be punished, but this law is drawn in a way that also criminalizes speech that should be protected by the First Amendment.

The dissenters are right that the court should have made Congress pass a more carefully written law.

The court has traditionally been extraordinarily careful, as it must be, both to protect children and the right to free expression. It has upheld bans on sexually explicit photos of children that do not meet the legal standard of obscenity. But the court has emphasized that these free-speech exceptions are narrow.

If the court had struck down the offensive parts of the law, the damage to child-pornography prosecutions would be minimal.


The New York Times editorial




http://www.kansascity.com/273/story/634528.html

just one example

uno

She laid the groundwork for a floor fight at the convention because it didn't go exactly as she wanted. I'm not surprised at all.

__________________
-uno
icq: 111-914
CrazyBabe.com - porn art
MojoHost - For all your hosting needs, present and future. Tell them I sent ya!

tony286

Thank you she could give a shit less about the voters.

baddog

How was that against us? Would you rather they lumped us all in together?

baddog

So you have learned to cut and paste. How about doing a cut and paste of the law and its negative effect.

pocketkangaroo

Lumped us all together? The Miller case was prosecuting someone for a dirty magazine.

The ruling gave the states and federal government much more power in prosecuting obscenity cases. It created a vague definition for charging someone with obscenity. It led to thousands of arrests, and thousands of adult bookstores/theatres being shutdown across the country. We still have obscenity prosecutions to this day under that ruling. It was one of the worst rulings the porn industry has ever had against it.

"Liberal" judges want pornography to be protected under the 1st Amendment. "Conservative" judges don't. I don't know how you could be in this industry and support conservative judges with a straight face. Look at the voting in Aschcroft vs FSC. The conservative judges voted in favor of the government, the liberal judges didn't.

Snake Doctor

It was against us because it allows a local community to decide what is protected free expression and what is obscene, instead of taking a liberal view of the 1st amendment.

It is also a vague law, in that you can't possibly know whether or not what you're doing is legal until after you are tried and then either convicted or acquitted.

This would violate the vagueness doctrine

Void for vagueness is a legal concept in American constitutional law, whereby a civil statute or, more commonly, a criminal statute is adjudged unconstitutional when it is so vague that persons "of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagueness_doctrine

This principle is sometimes used to strike down municipal by-laws that forbid "explicit" or "objectionable" contents from being sold in a certain city; courts often find such expressions to be too vague, giving municipal inspectors discretion beyond what the law allows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagueness

__________________
sig too big