marylou Posted February 22, 2008 Posted February 22, 2008 I think it's a dumb idea that puts the voters father away from the nominating process. The fact that several of the WA Dem superdelegates have endorsed Clinton, despite that fact the Obama won in WA by a landslide in the caucuses, really chaps my hide. What do you think of the superdelegate component to the nominating process? Quote
ClimbingPanther Posted February 22, 2008 Posted February 22, 2008 oh, and I suggest Gold Bond for the chapped hide Quote
kevbone Posted February 22, 2008 Posted February 22, 2008 I think the entire voting system needs to be changed. The idea of a delegate is lame. Then you have “super” delegates……WTF. It should be you show up…..you vote. Everybody gets to vote one time. Who ever gets the most votes wins. This seems so simple. Quote
Gary_Yngve Posted February 22, 2008 Posted February 22, 2008 I think the Dems realize that if they reverse the popular vote via the superdelegates, they'll lose the election in Nov (at least if McCain is the Repub candidate). Quote
Fairweather Posted February 22, 2008 Posted February 22, 2008 (edited) 1.) You are someone who admits to crossing party lines in order to sabotage the party primary process in this state. 2.) You didn't even know what DAY the primary was being held. You have no standing to complain about primary processes that you yourself help subvert and are ignorant of. Edited February 22, 2008 by Fairweather Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 22, 2008 Posted February 22, 2008 I think it's a dumb idea that puts the voters father away from the nominating process. The fact that several of the WA Dem superdelegates have endorsed Clinton, despite that fact the Obama won in WA by a landslide in the caucuses, really chaps my hide. Yeah that sucks - kind of like dyed-in-the-wool Dem's voting in the R's primary. STFU, hypocrite, you've got nothing to be outraged about. Quote
marylou Posted February 22, 2008 Author Posted February 22, 2008 I didn't vote R in the primary--McCain had pulled so far ahead of Huckabee that it was pointless. Off topic, move along, FW. Quote
ClimbingPanther Posted February 22, 2008 Posted February 22, 2008 k-bone, take the time to understand why the national electoral process is the way it is before you advocate against it. At the most basic level, we have the electoral college because the US is not a homogeneous country; we're a union of states. Also, don't forget it is distinctly different from the political parties' own processes. Primaries & caucuses and all the rules that go with them are set up to accomplish whatever the parties want them to accomplish. It would appear that superdelegates exist because whoever created the rules wanted their voices heard a little louder than joe schmoe on the street. Note that superdelegates don't exist in the national electoral process. Quote
Fairweather Posted February 23, 2008 Posted February 23, 2008 I didn't vote R in the primary--McCain had pulled so far ahead of Huckabee that it was pointless. Off topic, move along, FW. You have absolutely no scruples. Quote
sirwoofalot Posted February 23, 2008 Posted February 23, 2008 (edited) I think it's a dumb idea that puts the voters father away from the nominating process. The fact that several of the WA Dem superdelegates have endorsed Clinton, despite that fact the Obama won in WA by a landslide in the caucuses, really chaps my hide. What do you think of the superdelegate component to the nominating process? It was this whole "superdelegate" thing that got me all bent out of shap about the so called 'Democarates'. I mean what is so democratic about a few so called superdelegates deciding on the nomination? that is NOT democracy. It resembles socialism as practiced by the Soviets or the Chineses. Free elections and everyone gets to vote, it is just your vote really doesn't count. Edited February 23, 2008 by sirwoofalot Quote
kevbone Posted February 23, 2008 Posted February 23, 2008 k-bone, take the time to understand why the national electoral process is the way it is before you advocate against it. At the most basic level, we have the electoral college because the US is not a homogeneous country; we're a union of states. I do understand why the national electoral process is the way it is. I just don’t agree with it. Let each state vote. Who ever gets the most votes, wins that state. No more voting for a guy that will vote for me. Quote
selkirk Posted February 23, 2008 Posted February 23, 2008 I think it's a dumb idea that puts the voters father away from the nominating process. The fact that several of the WA Dem superdelegates have endorsed Clinton, despite that fact the Obama won in WA by a landslide in the caucuses, really chaps my hide. Yeah that sucks - kind of like dyed-in-the-wool Dem's voting in the R's primary. STFU, hypocrite, you've got nothing to be outraged about. My parents used to do that in North Idaho. Of course all elections were actually decided in the Rep. primaries since no democrat was ever elected to anything. Quote
marylou Posted February 23, 2008 Author Posted February 23, 2008 I think it's a dumb idea that puts the voters father away from the nominating process. The fact that several of the WA Dem superdelegates have endorsed Clinton, despite that fact the Obama won in WA by a landslide in the caucuses, really chaps my hide. What do you think of the superdelegate component to the nominating process? It was this whole "superdelegate" thing that got me all bent out of shap about the so called 'Democarates'. I mean what is so democratic about a few so called superdelegates deciding on the nomination? that is NOT democracy. It resembles socialism as practiced by the Soviets or the Chineses. Free elections and everyone gets to vote, it is just your vote really doesn't count. Why do you even care how the "Democrates" select their candidate? Quote
sirwoofalot Posted February 23, 2008 Posted February 23, 2008 I think it's a dumb idea that puts the voters father away from the nominating process. The fact that several of the WA Dem superdelegates have endorsed Clinton, despite that fact the Obama won in WA by a landslide in the caucuses, really chaps my hide. What do you think of the superdelegate component to the nominating process? It was this whole "superdelegate" thing that got me all bent out of shap about the so called 'Democarates'. I mean what is so democratic about a few so called superdelegates deciding on the nomination? that is NOT democracy. It resembles socialism as practiced by the Soviets or the Chineses. Free elections and everyone gets to vote, it is just your vote really doesn't count. Why do you even care how the "Democrates" select their candidate? Because I just want to show they the domocratic party is not interested in democracy. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 23, 2008 Posted February 23, 2008 Because I just want to show they the domocratic party is not interested in democracy. Neither is Marylou. Quote
sirwoofalot Posted February 23, 2008 Posted February 23, 2008 Because I just want to show they the domocratic party is not interested in democracy. Neither is Marylou. I think most Americans are interested in Democracy. By its very nature someone who is deceived does not realize they are being deceived. The rank and file of democrats does not realize they are being led down the line of Socialism. Now before anyone flips out and starts name calling the right, let’s first have a correct definition of fascism before you start calling the right fascists. I got this from Dictionary.com. The key word is forcibly. The right does not force anyone to vote in their favor. No one has a gun held to their head and told them must vote one way or another. fas•cism ˈfæʃ ɪz əm - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fash-iz-uh m] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. (sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. Who was it that said they were going to defeat America with out ever firing one shot, Stalin or maybe another soviet leader? Maybe they were correct…. The Democrats choose not use democracy. Quote
marylou Posted February 23, 2008 Author Posted February 23, 2008 I would consider the holding of prisoners at Gitmo without due process forcible, and aspects of the Patriot Act are designed to suppress opposition and crisism. Ditto on the so-called "free speech zones" that are created to keep critical voices away from events that President is at. There,we have fascism covered. I don't think most Dems are opposed to universal health care of some sort, and that is a socialistic program. Nothing real scary about that IMO. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 23, 2008 Posted February 23, 2008 The rank and file of democrats does not realize they are being led down the line of Socialism. there are quite a few who are active socialists - if not outright Marxists - including a few posters here by their own admissions. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.