Are we disconnected here or are you deliberately ignoring what I'm talking about? I'm referring to the threats against her, the obscene and sexist texts and voice mails, the listing of her grandchildren's school as a threat and the vandalism of the party HQ.
OK, sorry. Missed that. No, I never condone violence toward another person. But look, are those typical Bernie supporters? Of course not.
But you also might want to consider how obscene and akin to criminal Lange's actions were. That's where the focus needs to be with this issue, not the few who make the headlines with their over-the-top violent reactions. And of course you might also consider that some of those threats were planted by people trying to make Bernie supporters look bad because that really does happen too. Sort of like Spy vs Spy.
But see how we get detracted from the core issues? Now isn't that interesting?!
Thanks for acknowledging my post and concern. Now as far as distracting from the core issue, I'm not sure that's true. There's plenty of articles and like I said, Politifact did a full assessment and declared the accusations of Bernie's campaign as "false".
For me, it's just not material. All of this was over two delegates. That's it. They had no chance to change the rules which have been in place for several election cycles. You need a super majority to make the changes and they didn't have the numbers to do so.
Are we disconnected here or are you deliberately ignoring what I'm talking about? I'm referring to the threats against her, the obscene and sexist texts and voice mails, the listing of her grandchildren's school as a threat and the vandalism of the party HQ.
OK, sorry. Missed that. No, I never condone violence toward another person. But look, are those typical Bernie supporters? Of course not.
But you also might want to consider how obscene and akin to criminal Lange's actions were. That's where the focus needs to be with this issue, not the few who make the headlines with their over-the-top violent reactions. And of course you might also consider that some of those threats were planted by people trying to make Bernie supporters look bad because that really does happen too. Sort of like Spy vs Spy.
But see how we get detracted from the core issues? Now isn't that interesting?!
Thanks for acknowledging my post and concern. Now as far as distracting from the core issue, I'm not sure that's true. There's plenty of articles and like I said, Politifact did a full assessment and declared the accusations of Bernie's campaign as "false".
For me, it's just not material. All of this was over two delegates. That's it. They had no chance to change the rules which have been in place for several election cycles. You need a super majority to make the changes and they didn't have the numbers to do so.
I'm sorry, but I find it absolutely pathetic that we're debating Sanders' moral status because he only condemned (and not "strongly condemned") violence. Does anyone actually blatantly need it to be spelled out to them that such a message could possibly mean condoning or being apathetic to violence?
Mob mentality (which clearly took over) is well-documented to bring out traits in people they would not normally possess. Also, to be more accurate, I'd say the accusations of Bernie's campaign were mis or under-informed, and given the false premise that they had - their reactions were more or less understandable (albeit absolutely not right). If I thought that my democratic rights were being undermined - I would certainly raise a stink. On a topic people are so passionate about, it is completely feasible that this would lead to mob mentality no matter where on the political spectrum you live. It does not say a damn thing about Sanders.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Are we disconnected here or are you deliberately ignoring what I'm talking about? I'm referring to the threats against her, the obscene and sexist texts and voice mails, the listing of her grandchildren's school as a threat and the vandalism of the party HQ.
OK, sorry. Missed that. No, I never condone violence toward another person. But look, are those typical Bernie supporters? Of course not.
But you also might want to consider how obscene and akin to criminal Lange's actions were. That's where the focus needs to be with this issue, not the few who make the headlines with their over-the-top violent reactions. And of course you might also consider that some of those threats were planted by people trying to make Bernie supporters look bad because that really does happen too. Sort of like Spy vs Spy.
But see how we get detracted from the core issues? Now isn't that interesting?!
Thanks for acknowledging my post and concern. Now as far as distracting from the core issue, I'm not sure that's true. There's plenty of articles and like I said, Politifact did a full assessment and declared the accusations of Bernie's campaign as "false".
For me, it's just not material. All of this was over two delegates. That's it. They had no chance to change the rules which have been in place for several election cycles. You need a super majority to make the changes and they didn't have the numbers to do so.
I'm sorry, but I find it absolutely pathetic that we're debating Sanders' moral status because he only condemned (and not "strongly condemned") violence. Does anyone actually blatantly need it to be spelled out to them that such a message could possibly mean condoning or being apathetic to violence?
Mob mentality (which clearly took over) is well-documented to bring out traits in people they would not normally possess. Also, to be more accurate, I'd say the accusations of Bernie's campaign were mis or under-informed, and given the false premise that they had - their reactions were more or less understandable (albeit absolutely not right). If I thought that my democratic rights were being undermined - I would certainly raise a stink. On a topic people are so passionate about, it is completely feasible that this would lead to mob mentality no matter where on the political spectrum you live. It does not say a damn thing about Sanders.
Sanders is a scapegoat here. The election process in MANY primaries here are showing to be unprepared, unorganized, election officials messing with results or dismissing voters, and similar.
This has nothing to do with Sanders and EVERYTHING to do with a corrupt electoral process in this country infringing on voters rights.
It seemed like Trump took shit for the violence committed by his supporters. I don't think it is unreasonable to hold Sanders to the same standard, calling for him to control his people. Feel the Bern seems to be taking on new meaning these days.
I'd like to see Bernie, Donald, and Justin Trudeau (who apparently throws elbows at female MPs now) get in a cage and duke it out. Let that aggression loose. Put it on pay-per-view. Let's make politics a blood sport and use those pay-per-views to bring down the debt.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
It seemed like Trump took shit for the violence committed by his supporters. I don't think it is unreasonable to hold Sanders to the same standard, calling for him to control his people. Feel the Bern seems to be taking on new meaning these days.
I'd like to see Bernie, Donald, and Justin Trudeau (who apparently throws elbows at female MPs now) get in a cage and duke it out. Let that aggression loose. Put it on pay-per-view. Let's make politics a blood sport and use those pay-per-views to bring down the debt.
Apples and oranges. Trump incited his supporters to violence and said he'd pay for their legal defense. I mean, wtf. That makes Trump actually RESPONSIBLE (at least in part) for the violence. The same absolutely cannot be said of Bernie.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Trump is more responsible, there's no doubt. But Bernie cannot wink at his protesters and say they are just doing it because his office was vandalized or whatever. That's implied in his message.
It seemed like Trump took shit for the violence committed by his supporters. I don't think it is unreasonable to hold Sanders to the same standard, calling for him to control his people. Feel the Bern seems to be taking on new meaning these days.
I'd like to see Bernie, Donald, and Justin Trudeau (who apparently throws elbows at female MPs now) get in a cage and duke it out. Let that aggression loose. Put it on pay-per-view. Let's make politics a blood sport and use those pay-per-views to bring down the debt.
Apples and oranges. Trump incited his supporters to violence and said he'd pay for their legal defense. I mean, wtf. That makes Trump actually RESPONSIBLE (at least in part) for the violence. The same absolutely cannot be said of Bernie.
I agree with you that my post had some apples and oranges going on, but I still think Sanders hasn't done enough to corral his people. Trump definitely did and does incite his people. Sanders just ignores and/or attempts to justify the actions of his people, but I agree that he doesn't typically incite them. Either way, I still think he's complicit and has a responsibility to demonstrate a little leadership.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Trump is more responsible, there's no doubt. But Bernie cannot wink at his protesters and say they are just doing it because his office was vandalized or whatever. That's implied in his message.
I didn't actually get that from his statement. I guess I can see how you are reading that from it, but I have no reason to think that Bernie actually implied that on purpose.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
It seemed like Trump took shit for the violence committed by his supporters. I don't think it is unreasonable to hold Sanders to the same standard, calling for him to control his people. Feel the Bern seems to be taking on new meaning these days.
I'd like to see Bernie, Donald, and Justin Trudeau (who apparently throws elbows at female MPs now) get in a cage and duke it out. Let that aggression loose. Put it on pay-per-view. Let's make politics a blood sport and use those pay-per-views to bring down the debt.
Apples and oranges. Trump incited his supporters to violence and said he'd pay for their legal defense. I mean, wtf. That makes Trump actually RESPONSIBLE (at least in part) for the violence. The same absolutely cannot be said of Bernie.
I agree with you that my post had some apples and oranges going on, but I still think Sanders hasn't done enough to corral his people. Trump definitely did and does incite his people. Sanders just ignores and/or attempts to justify the actions of his people, but I agree that he doesn't typically incite them. Either way, I still think he's complicit and has a responsibility to demonstrate a little leadership.
Simply not true. He has always condemned violence.
It seemed like Trump took shit for the violence committed by his supporters. I don't think it is unreasonable to hold Sanders to the same standard, calling for him to control his people. Feel the Bern seems to be taking on new meaning these days.
I'd like to see Bernie, Donald, and Justin Trudeau (who apparently throws elbows at female MPs now) get in a cage and duke it out. Let that aggression loose. Put it on pay-per-view. Let's make politics a blood sport and use those pay-per-views to bring down the debt.
Apples and oranges. Trump incited his supporters to violence and said he'd pay for their legal defense. I mean, wtf. That makes Trump actually RESPONSIBLE (at least in part) for the violence. The same absolutely cannot be said of Bernie.
I agree with you that my post had some apples and oranges going on, but I still think Sanders hasn't done enough to corral his people. Trump definitely did and does incite his people. Sanders just ignores and/or attempts to justify the actions of his people, but I agree that he doesn't typically incite them. Either way, I still think he's complicit and has a responsibility to demonstrate a little leadership.
Simply not true. He has always condemned violence.
Agreed.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Trump is more responsible, there's no doubt. But Bernie cannot wink at his protesters and say they are just doing it because his office was vandalized or whatever. That's implied in his message.
I didn't actually get that from his statement. I guess I can see how you are reading that from it, but I have no reason to think that Bernie actually implied that on purpose.
Fair enough. If that wasn't the intent, I don't know why they decided to include the " But, when we speak of violence, I should add here that months ago, during the Nevada campaign, shots were fired into my campaign office in Nevada and apartment housing complex my campaign staff lived in was broken into and ransacked". It just feels like a justification.
Doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things I suppose. The actual race is still where it was a week ago. I'm just not sure why they are fighting for the small number of delegates that are not pledged, in a just a few states. I don't get the strategy.
It seemed like Trump took shit for the violence committed by his supporters. I don't think it is unreasonable to hold Sanders to the same standard, calling for him to control his people. Feel the Bern seems to be taking on new meaning these days.
I'd like to see Bernie, Donald, and Justin Trudeau (who apparently throws elbows at female MPs now) get in a cage and duke it out. Let that aggression loose. Put it on pay-per-view. Let's make politics a blood sport and use those pay-per-views to bring down the debt.
Apples and oranges. Trump incited his supporters to violence and said he'd pay for their legal defense. I mean, wtf. That makes Trump actually RESPONSIBLE (at least in part) for the violence. The same absolutely cannot be said of Bernie.
I agree with you that my post had some apples and oranges going on, but I still think Sanders hasn't done enough to corral his people. Trump definitely did and does incite his people. Sanders just ignores and/or attempts to justify the actions of his people, but I agree that he doesn't typically incite them. Either way, I still think he's complicit and has a responsibility to demonstrate a little leadership.
Simply not true. He has always condemned violence.
Conditionally. He doesn't like it, BUT BUT BUT.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
You guys are too focused in pointing fingers. Yes, there is a difference between Trump inciting his supporters vs. Sanders condemning it.
But FFS, we have a huge suppression of democratic rights in this country right now, and all you can think about is "It must be HIS fault!" Get your heads out of the sand and look at what's being done to the entire democratic process. Everyone should be angry, but not at the scapegoat. The system is fucked and by contributing to the division of the people rather than uniting and demanding better from our government!
You guys are too focused in pointing fingers. Yes, there is a difference between Trump inciting his supporters vs. Sanders condemning it.
But FFS, we have a huge suppression of democratic rights in this country right now, and all you can think about is "It must be HIS fault!" Get your heads out of the sand and look at what's being done to the entire democratic process. Everyone should be angry, but not at the scapegoat. The system is fucked and by contributing to the division of the people rather than uniting and demanding better from our government!
I totally agree with you on this. As usual, Americans are being distracted from what really matters.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
You guys are too focused in pointing fingers. Yes, there is a difference between Trump inciting his supporters vs. Sanders condemning it.
But FFS, we have a huge suppression of democratic rights in this country right now, and all you can think about is "It must be HIS fault!" Get your heads out of the sand and look at what's being done to the entire democratic process. Everyone should be angry, but not at the scapegoat. The system is fucked and by contributing to the division of the people rather than uniting and demanding better from our government!
I totally agree with you on this. As usual, Americans are being distracted from what really matters.
You guys are too focused in pointing fingers. Yes, there is a difference between Trump inciting his supporters vs. Sanders condemning it.
But FFS, we have a huge suppression of democratic rights in this country right now, and all you can think about is "It must be HIS fault!" Get your heads out of the sand and look at what's being done to the entire democratic process. Everyone should be angry, but not at the scapegoat. The system is fucked and by contributing to the division of the people rather than uniting and demanding better from our government!
Negative. You are misunderstanding the words corrupt and suppression. Were you suppressed from voting in the general election? Do you think your vote wasn't tallied? Were you strong armed into who to vote for? Were you told that if you don't vote for X that you wouldn't have a job?
You mistakenly believe that party rules are somehow governed by the Constitution or they are part of your inalienable rights. They are not. They are created by the party, ratified by the party, according to the party rules. There was no miscarriage of justice in Nevada. There was no law to miscarry. BrianLux said what happened was 'akin to criminal'. Not even close. There were only convention rules, created by the party, for the party.
I thought Free was talking more generally than that.... a LOT of things fall under "a huge suppression of democratic rights". The ridiculous election process and voting reforms are just two of many problems.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
It seemed like Trump took shit for the violence committed by his supporters. I don't think it is unreasonable to hold Sanders to the same standard, calling for him to control his people. Feel the Bern seems to be taking on new meaning these days.
I'd like to see Bernie, Donald, and Justin Trudeau (who apparently throws elbows at female MPs now) get in a cage and duke it out. Let that aggression loose. Put it on pay-per-view. Let's make politics a blood sport and use those pay-per-views to bring down the debt.
Apples and oranges. Trump incited his supporters to violence and said he'd pay for their legal defense. I mean, wtf. That makes Trump actually RESPONSIBLE (at least in part) for the violence. The same absolutely cannot be said of Bernie.
I agree with you that my post had some apples and oranges going on, but I still think Sanders hasn't done enough to corral his people. Trump definitely did and does incite his people. Sanders just ignores and/or attempts to justify the actions of his people, but I agree that he doesn't typically incite them. Either way, I still think he's complicit and has a responsibility to demonstrate a little leadership.
Simply not true. He has always condemned violence.
Conditionally. He doesn't like it, BUT BUT BUT.
Because it's almost always an unfortunate reaction to some other fucking bullshit that, nonetheless, needs to be addressed.
I thought Free was talking more generally than that.... a LOT of things fall under "a huge suppression of democratic rights". The ridiculous election process and voting reforms are just two of many problems.
Secretaries of State in a few states (they generally control the election process) have already declared that they would make reforms and improvements to increase ballot access, purge rolls earlier, etc. Reforms are necessary. But there's a big leap from ineffective or incompetent all the way to suppression and corrupt. Some people need to gain some perspective.
I thought Free was talking more generally than that.... a LOT of things fall under "a huge suppression of democratic rights". The ridiculous election process and voting reforms are just two of many problems.
I thought Free was talking more generally than that.... a LOT of things fall under "a huge suppression of democratic rights". The ridiculous election process and voting reforms are just two of many problems.
Exactly. I find it psychologically interesting that people in other countries can see our problems more clearly than the people who reside in our country. Being distracted by details is exactly our problem.
You guys are too focused in pointing fingers. Yes, there is a difference between Trump inciting his supporters vs. Sanders condemning it.
But FFS, we have a huge suppression of democratic rights in this country right now, and all you can think about is "It must be HIS fault!" Get your heads out of the sand and look at what's being done to the entire democratic process. Everyone should be angry, but not at the scapegoat. The system is fucked and by contributing to the division of the people rather than uniting and demanding better from our government!
I totally agree with you on this. As usual, Americans are being distracted from what really matters.
You guys are too focused in pointing fingers. Yes, there is a difference between Trump inciting his supporters vs. Sanders condemning it.
But FFS, we have a huge suppression of democratic rights in this country right now, and all you can think about is "It must be HIS fault!" Get your heads out of the sand and look at what's being done to the entire democratic process. Everyone should be angry, but not at the scapegoat. The system is fucked and by contributing to the division of the people rather than uniting and demanding better from our government!
Negative. You are misunderstanding the words corrupt and suppression. Were you suppressed from voting in the general election? Do you think your vote wasn't tallied? Were you strong armed into who to vote for? Were you told that if you don't vote for X that you wouldn't have a job?
You mistakenly believe that party rules are somehow governed by the Constitution or they are part of your inalienable rights. They are not. They are created by the party, ratified by the party, according to the party rules. There was no miscarriage of justice in Nevada. There was no law to miscarry. BrianLux said what happened was 'akin to criminal'. Not even close. There were only convention rules, created by the party, for the party.
I believe there at least was a miscarriage of party rules. It seems the voice vote was improperly carried out and, when a standing vote of separation should have been conducted, it was not.
You guys are too focused in pointing fingers. Yes, there is a difference between Trump inciting his supporters vs. Sanders condemning it.
But FFS, we have a huge suppression of democratic rights in this country right now, and all you can think about is "It must be HIS fault!" Get your heads out of the sand and look at what's being done to the entire democratic process. Everyone should be angry, but not at the scapegoat. The system is fucked and by contributing to the division of the people rather than uniting and demanding better from our government!
I totally agree with you on this. As usual, Americans are being distracted from what really matters.
You guys are too focused in pointing fingers. Yes, there is a difference between Trump inciting his supporters vs. Sanders condemning it.
But FFS, we have a huge suppression of democratic rights in this country right now, and all you can think about is "It must be HIS fault!" Get your heads out of the sand and look at what's being done to the entire democratic process. Everyone should be angry, but not at the scapegoat. The system is fucked and by contributing to the division of the people rather than uniting and demanding better from our government!
Negative. You are misunderstanding the words corrupt and suppression. Were you suppressed from voting in the general election? Do you think your vote wasn't tallied? Were you strong armed into who to vote for? Were you told that if you don't vote for X that you wouldn't have a job?
You mistakenly believe that party rules are somehow governed by the Constitution or they are part of your inalienable rights. They are not. They are created by the party, ratified by the party, according to the party rules. There was no miscarriage of justice in Nevada. There was no law to miscarry. BrianLux said what happened was 'akin to criminal'. Not even close. There were only convention rules, created by the party, for the party.
I believe there at least was a miscarriage of party rules. It seems the voice vote was improperly carried out and, when a standing vote of separation should have been conducted, it was not.
That's fair. Voice votes are ineffective when that sort of shouting is going on. The more practical problem is that 2/3 would be needed to change the procedure. Considering the at least equal number of Hillary supporters, that likely would not have happened. But she should have run the process better. I'm sure she was totally unprepared for this type of situation.
I thought Free was talking more generally than that.... a LOT of things fall under "a huge suppression of democratic rights". The ridiculous election process and voting reforms are just two of many problems.
Secretaries of State in a few states (they generally control the election process) have already declared that they would make reforms and improvements to increase ballot access, purge rolls earlier, etc. Reforms are necessary. But there's a big leap from ineffective or incompetent all the way to suppression and corrupt. Some people need to gain some perspective.
Again, I was talking more generally. But I don't think that people are overreacting.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
You guys are too focused in pointing fingers. Yes, there is a difference between Trump inciting his supporters vs. Sanders condemning it.
But FFS, we have a huge suppression of democratic rights in this country right now, and all you can think about is "It must be HIS fault!" Get your heads out of the sand and look at what's being done to the entire democratic process. Everyone should be angry, but not at the scapegoat. The system is fucked and by contributing to the division of the people rather than uniting and demanding better from our government!
I totally agree with you on this. As usual, Americans are being distracted from what really matters.
You guys are too focused in pointing fingers. Yes, there is a difference between Trump inciting his supporters vs. Sanders condemning it.
But FFS, we have a huge suppression of democratic rights in this country right now, and all you can think about is "It must be HIS fault!" Get your heads out of the sand and look at what's being done to the entire democratic process. Everyone should be angry, but not at the scapegoat. The system is fucked and by contributing to the division of the people rather than uniting and demanding better from our government!
Negative. You are misunderstanding the words corrupt and suppression. Were you suppressed from voting in the general election? Do you think your vote wasn't tallied? Were you strong armed into who to vote for? Were you told that if you don't vote for X that you wouldn't have a job?
You mistakenly believe that party rules are somehow governed by the Constitution or they are part of your inalienable rights. They are not. They are created by the party, ratified by the party, according to the party rules. There was no miscarriage of justice in Nevada. There was no law to miscarry. BrianLux said what happened was 'akin to criminal'. Not even close. There were only convention rules, created by the party, for the party.
I understand that convention rules are created for the party, by the party, however are primaries not funded and run by the state-level governments (at least partially)? That being the case, doesn't the federal government have an obligation to ensure that state-level primary election policies are fair, equitable, and consistent from state to state?
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
You guys are too focused in pointing fingers. Yes, there is a difference between Trump inciting his supporters vs. Sanders condemning it.
But FFS, we have a huge suppression of democratic rights in this country right now, and all you can think about is "It must be HIS fault!" Get your heads out of the sand and look at what's being done to the entire democratic process. Everyone should be angry, but not at the scapegoat. The system is fucked and by contributing to the division of the people rather than uniting and demanding better from our government!
I totally agree with you on this. As usual, Americans are being distracted from what really matters.
You guys are too focused in pointing fingers. Yes, there is a difference between Trump inciting his supporters vs. Sanders condemning it.
But FFS, we have a huge suppression of democratic rights in this country right now, and all you can think about is "It must be HIS fault!" Get your heads out of the sand and look at what's being done to the entire democratic process. Everyone should be angry, but not at the scapegoat. The system is fucked and by contributing to the division of the people rather than uniting and demanding better from our government!
Negative. You are misunderstanding the words corrupt and suppression. Were you suppressed from voting in the general election? Do you think your vote wasn't tallied? Were you strong armed into who to vote for? Were you told that if you don't vote for X that you wouldn't have a job?
You mistakenly believe that party rules are somehow governed by the Constitution or they are part of your inalienable rights. They are not. They are created by the party, ratified by the party, according to the party rules. There was no miscarriage of justice in Nevada. There was no law to miscarry. BrianLux said what happened was 'akin to criminal'. Not even close. There were only convention rules, created by the party, for the party.
I understand that convention rules are created for the party, by the party, however are primaries not funded and run by the state-level governments (at least partially)? That being the case, doesn't the federal government have an obligation to ensure that state-level primary election policies are fair, equitable, and consistent from state to state?
No, they absolutely do not have that obligation. In fact, it would likely be challenged as a violation of the 10th Amendment. Any powers not delegated to the Federal government are reserved for the states. There is nothing about primaries in the Constitution. The one obligation that would be held for the Fed is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which protects against poll taxes and other discriminatory practices to suppress voting by race, creed, sex, origin.
Now the argument about the obligation of the state, based on funding, is a better argument. That plays into what I was saying about reforms for access, hours, etc. The elections are generally funded by the state so the Secretary does have that obligation.
I do think it's pretty nuts that different states have different rules for a NATIONAL election. Makes sense that states would have different systems on the state government level, but I think that all states should be restricted to the same guidelines and methods when it comes to the electoral process of a federal election. Anything else makes no sense at all.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I do think it's pretty nuts that different states have different rules for a NATIONAL election. Makes sense that states would have different systems on the state government level, but I think that all states should be restricted to the same guidelines and methods when it comes to the electoral process of a federal election. Anything else makes no sense at all.
It's not a federal election. It's an election to choose delegates that represent a state at the national convention for a private party. It's not even an election to select a state official.
I do think it's pretty nuts that different states have different rules for a NATIONAL election. Makes sense that states would have different systems on the state government level, but I think that all states should be restricted to the same guidelines and methods when it comes to the electoral process of a federal election. Anything else makes no sense at all.
It's not a federal election. It's an election to choose delegates that represent a state at the national convention for a private party. It's not even an election to select a state official.
it's choosing the national candidate. you know that's what pjsoul means.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I do think it's pretty nuts that different states have different rules for a NATIONAL election. Makes sense that states would have different systems on the state government level, but I think that all states should be restricted to the same guidelines and methods when it comes to the electoral process of a federal election. Anything else makes no sense at all.
It's not a federal election. It's an election to choose delegates that represent a state at the national convention for a private party. It's not even an election to select a state official.
Oh, duh really?? Yeah, I know that. Obviously I am saying that all states should conform when it comes to the national political parties and how the party leaders are chosen. As HFD said, I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Comments
For me, it's just not material. All of this was over two delegates. That's it. They had no chance to change the rules which have been in place for several election cycles. You need a super majority to make the changes and they didn't have the numbers to do so.
Mob mentality (which clearly took over) is well-documented to bring out traits in people they would not normally possess. Also, to be more accurate, I'd say the accusations of Bernie's campaign were mis or under-informed, and given the false premise that they had - their reactions were more or less understandable (albeit absolutely not right). If I thought that my democratic rights were being undermined - I would certainly raise a stink. On a topic people are so passionate about, it is completely feasible that this would lead to mob mentality no matter where on the political spectrum you live. It does not say a damn thing about Sanders.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
This has nothing to do with Sanders and EVERYTHING to do with a corrupt electoral process in this country infringing on voters rights.
I'd like to see Bernie, Donald, and Justin Trudeau (who apparently throws elbows at female MPs now) get in a cage and duke it out. Let that aggression loose. Put it on pay-per-view. Let's make politics a blood sport and use those pay-per-views to bring down the debt.
Doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things I suppose. The actual race is still where it was a week ago. I'm just not sure why they are fighting for the small number of delegates that are not pledged, in a just a few states. I don't get the strategy.
But FFS, we have a huge suppression of democratic rights in this country right now, and all you can think about is "It must be HIS fault!" Get your heads out of the sand and look at what's being done to the entire democratic process. Everyone should be angry, but not at the scapegoat. The system is fucked and by contributing to the division of the people rather than uniting and demanding better from our government!
You mistakenly believe that party rules are somehow governed by the Constitution or they are part of your inalienable rights. They are not. They are created by the party, ratified by the party, according to the party rules. There was no miscarriage of justice in Nevada. There was no law to miscarry. BrianLux said what happened was 'akin to criminal'. Not even close. There were only convention rules, created by the party, for the party.
No more personal comments at each other...posts have been removed...stick to the topic.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Now the argument about the obligation of the state, based on funding, is a better argument. That plays into what I was saying about reforms for access, hours, etc. The elections are generally funded by the state so the Secretary does have that obligation.
-EV 8/14/93