So how do the Dems get off so easily? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

lazarus1983 -> So how do the Dems get off so easily? (8/14/2007 7:31:02 PM)

I have yet to hear anyone, anyone at all, criticizing the Democratic Party for its attempts to shred the Constitution.

Mainly, I'm speaking of their attempt to stop an American citizen from his Constitution-guaranteed right to run for President. In 2006, Ralph Nader again attempted to run for President, only to run into opposition by the Democratic Party, as they attempted to sue to keep Nader off of ballots.

Why? What was their reasoning? Because it was inconvenient to them. Because it would hurt THEIR agenda, THEIR candidate.

Now of course, I know that the Dems' reasoning was that it would split the vote, and give Bush a better chance at retaining his presidency. But that is still not a good enough to stop an American from exercising his rights. There is no good reason.

After what happened, the Democratic Party is little better than the Republican Party in my eyes. Yet no one, not even conservative Fox News, has pointed this out. And why is that?



Sinergy -> RE: So how do the Dems get off so easily? (8/14/2007 7:39:07 PM)

 
Well...

1) I have voted for Ralph Nader in the Green Party for years.  I suppose if you had issues trying to vote for him as a Democrat, it might go back to you being registered to vote in the wrong party, as opposed to egregious election fraud.

2) I voted against AnencephalyBoy last election, although I remember seeing Nader on the ballot under Green.

3) Until the last mid-term election, the Republican's controlled the house and senate and a vast number of states and their election committees in the United States.

Would you mind clarifying your initial post?

Sinergy




lazarus1983 -> RE: So how do the Dems get off so easily? (8/14/2007 7:42:15 PM)

I too, have voted for Nader. I'm not saying the Democratic party was successful in keeping him off, but they did TRY.

Here's some clarification:

In several states, Nader's candidacy in 2004 became a point of dispute in the struggle between the Democratic and Republican Parties. Some Republicans and other conservatives supported Nader's right to be on the ballot, often with the hope that Nader's presence on the ballot would detract votes from the Democratic Party candidate.[1] Democrats used a variety of tactics and legal maneuvers aimed at keeping Nader off the ballot. Democratic Party supporters in some states alleged that election officials had placed Nader on the ballot improperly, and they instituted legal proceedings to remove him from the ballot.



Sinergy -> RE: So how do the Dems get off so easily? (8/14/2007 7:47:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lazarus1983

I too, have voted for Nader. I'm not saying the Democratic party was successful in keeping him off, but they did TRY.

Here's some clarification:



Does not really clarify exactly how a Republican Party or a Democratic Party can actually do anything to affect a third party candidate.  If you can provide a link showing actual actions (as opposed to news stories showing two whiney baby parties (Dems and Reps) complaining about this other guy) I would love to see them.

Although I do agree that both of them were upset about him being on the ballot.

Sinergy



Sinergy -> RE: So how do the Dems get off so easily? (8/14/2007 7:48:46 PM)

 
On a related note, I agree with anybody who believes that we will always have a two party system in this country.

The Democrat Republicans and Whigs will be here forever.

Or is that the Democrats and the Know Nothings.

Or...

Sinergy



lazarus1983 -> RE: So how do the Dems get off so easily? (8/14/2007 7:55:30 PM)

It'll take me some time, but I'll dig up some articles for you. NPR had some good pieces on it during election time.

And I'm glad no one's noticed that I put down 2006 election, when the election was actually in 2004. *whistles innocently*



p.s. Sinergy, this post goes up to 11



Sinergy -> RE: So how do the Dems get off so easily? (8/14/2007 8:00:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lazarus1983

p.s. Sinergy, this post goes up to 11



This post goes up to 8143.

Dont despair, your day will come

Sinergy



lazarus1983 -> RE: So how do the Dems get off so easily? (8/14/2007 8:02:27 PM)

Please tell me you caught the Spinal Tap reference, and that isn't just your painkiller-induced state warbling?



Sinergy -> RE: So how do the Dems get off so easily? (8/14/2007 8:06:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lazarus1983

Please tell me you caught the Spinal Tap reference, and that isn't just your painkiller-induced state warbling?


I did, please tell me you caught the reference to Mod 11s signature line.

Sinergy



TheHeretic -> RE: So how do the Dems get off so easily? (8/14/2007 8:11:18 PM)

        You have a valid point, Laz.  If you want some real excitement, watch how the Sheehan/Pelosi race shapes up.

       Just a side note;  'going to eleven' has some specific connotations around this forum.  It's kinda taken.  Keep dancing with Sinergy (who pisses people off for a living) and you might encounter the owner.

     Welcome.



DomKen -> RE: So how do the Dems get off so easily? (8/14/2007 8:52:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lazarus1983

I have yet to hear anyone, anyone at all, criticizing the Democratic Party for its attempts to shred the Constitution.

Mainly, I'm speaking of their attempt to stop an American citizen from his Constitution-guaranteed right to run for President. In 2006, Ralph Nader again attempted to run for President, only to run into opposition by the Democratic Party, as they attempted to sue to keep Nader off of ballots.

Why? What was their reasoning? Because it was inconvenient to them. Because it would hurt THEIR agenda, THEIR candidate.

Now of course, I know that the Dems' reasoning was that it would split the vote, and give Bush a better chance at retaining his presidency. But that is still not a good enough to stop an American from exercising his rights. There is no good reason.

After what happened, the Democratic Party is little better than the Republican Party in my eyes. Yet no one, not even conservative Fox News, has pointed this out. And why is that?

Pardon me? Democrats shredded the US Constitution by calling for full enforcement of existing laws? I must have missed something.

The fact is that the ballot access laws are horribly unfair and subject to manipulation by both major parties.* That the GOP tried to improperly place Nader on the ballot in an attempt to dilute the anti Bush vote was illegal and the Democratic party went to court to stop the shenanagins. All Nader and his GOP helpers had to do in those states was to actually get on the ballot properly rather than commiting election fraud.

Comparing this to the GOP's discarding of all but one or two of the ammendments of the Bill of Rights is quite bizarre.

BTW why Fox News stayed away from the story is because they absolutely positively have no desire for their viewers to have their curiousity stirred on the issue of ballot access. This is because the GOP's ballot access rules for primaries are designed to let a small group of party "leaders" designate the nominee rather than allowing the rank and file to choose from all candidates. For instance people should look into how many states will have Ron Paul on their primary ballots.

* I am completely opposed to the present ballot access system but until someone gets SCOTUS to declare them unconstitutional that is how the game is played.



Owner59 -> RE: So how do the Dems get off so easily? (8/14/2007 11:26:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lazarus1983

I have yet to hear anyone, anyone at all, criticizing the Democratic Party for its attempts to shred the Constitution.

Mainly, I'm speaking of their attempt to stop an American citizen from his Constitution-guaranteed right to run for President. In 2006, Ralph Nader again attempted to run for President, only to run into opposition by the Democratic Party, as they attempted to sue to keep Nader off of ballots.

Why? What was their reasoning? Because it was inconvenient to them. Because it would hurt THEIR agenda, THEIR candidate.

Now of course, I know that the Dems' reasoning was that it would split the vote, and give Bush a better chance at retaining his presidency. But that is still not a good enough to stop an American from exercising his rights. There is no good reason.

After what happened, the Democratic Party is little better than the Republican Party in my eyes. Yet no one, not even conservative Fox News, has pointed this out. And why is that?


"I have yet to hear anyone, anyone at all, criticizing the Democratic Party for its attempts to shred the Constitution."



Perhaps, you`re redefining the phrase,"shredding the constitution".

Because a few state Dems are resisting Nader ?Which is completely legal.You call that "shredding"?That`s a little extreme of you.


"Mainly, I'm speaking of their attempt to stop an American citizen from his Constitution-guaranteed right to run for President."
 
Could you point out where it says there`s a "Constitution-guaranteed right to run for President."
 
"After what happened, the Democratic Party is little better than the Republican Party in my eyes. Yet no one, not even conservative Fox News, has pointed this out. And why is that?"
 
 Both parties do this.If the greens had any power,they would to.

The difference here, is quality and quantity.The Dems vie for ballot positions w/ Nader, in a few states(which is legal). The Republicans steel presidential elections!!!

With illegal caging,and scrubbing voter lists of qualified voters,w/ out their knowledge,and every other fucking dirty illegal trick in the book.

1. Swift-boating ,I don`t have to remind you,or anyone here, about that ugliness.

2.Push-polling,  remember that one,where the  bush campaign asked voters if they knew John McCain had a black baby?What scum....

3.Distributing fliers in poor neighborhoods, just before Nov.2nd,saying that if you have un-paid fines or traffic tickets,you can`t vote.

4. Using computer programs ,to crash phone banks at the headquarters of the state Democrats in New Hampshire.
As well as programs calling voters,telling them to stay home because Kerry was way ahead,so their vote wasn`t needed.
Another lame republican dirty trick.

http://vote2004.eriposte.com/swingstates/newhampshire.htm

and...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aQGLEwqlIdHo

5.Voter fraud,...the real kind.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33798-2004Aug25.html

and

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?s=2421595

and

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/10/27/palast_voting/index.html

and

http://nddemnpl.blogspot.com/2005/08/dirty-tricks.html

and

http://nddemnpl.blogspot.com/2005/08/dirty-tricks.html

Maybe you can show some examples of dems doing this shit.
Real examples?

If you think that both sides are the same,you`re not not really paying attention.


 
 



luckydog1 -> RE: So how do the Dems get off so easily? (8/14/2007 11:29:15 PM)

Dom Ken seems to have the Primary and General elections confused.



cyberdude611 -> RE: So how do the Dems get off so easily? (8/15/2007 12:39:07 AM)

Or how about the Democrat voting tricks?

Does the DNC have a voodoo witch-doctor on their payroll? Because for some reason they are able to get dead people to the polls and cast votes for their candidates.

Or how about the crap about making sure that pollworkers don't have to check IDs before being allowed to vote. And spare me the absolute BS that it prevents the poor to vote. You know how much it costs to get a photo ID? $10 bucks. In fact some states said they would give it for free and the Dems STILL wouldn't accept that.
Now why would the Dems be so much against verifying photo IDs? Maybe because some of their voters (like illegal immigrants and convicts) should not be voting?

Or how about Al Gore's campaign workers handing out free cigarettes to homeless people in Wisconsin if they go and vote?



DomKen -> RE: So how do the Dems get off so easily? (8/15/2007 4:33:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Dom Ken seems to have the Primary and General elections confused.

Do you have any facts to back up that assertion? Or is this simply a lame attempt to imply I don't know what I'm talking about?

As to cyberdude's whinges, photo ID's that are strictly for polling place identification have a history of being used to deny legal voters access to the vote. As to some states offering them for free, which states? Georgia initially wanted to charge $35 a piece for a state ID while charging much less for a driver's license which could be used as well which struck people as a fairly clear attempt to disenfranchise those who didn't have driver's licenses which amounts to the poor and urban voters which amounts to Democratic voters.



Owner59 -> RE: So how do the Dems get off so easily? (8/15/2007 7:06:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

Or how about the Democrat voting tricks?

Does the DNC have a voodoo witch-doctor on their payroll? Because for some reason they are able to get dead people to the polls and cast votes for their candidates.

Or how about the crap about making sure that pollworkers don't have to check IDs before being allowed to vote. And spare me the absolute BS that it prevents the poor to vote. You know how much it costs to get a photo ID? $10 bucks. In fact some states said they would give it for free and the Dems STILL wouldn't accept that.
Now why would the Dems be so much against verifying photo IDs? Maybe because some of their voters (like illegal immigrants and convicts) should not be voting?

Or how about Al Gore's campaign workers handing out free cigarettes to homeless people in Wisconsin if they go and vote?


I asked for "real" examples.

I`ve heard about the one about the dead people.It`s an urban legend,though.Any documented cases of that,you can point to?

Is there any Dems going to jail for voter fraud?

Are there any "republican voter" caging lists?(an activity that the GOP has been under court order specifically, not to do.)


How about that one about bringing drunk ,homeless bums in to vote?That was always a good one.

I know your at a loss,but keep search`n and googl`n,you may find some thing from 50 years ago,maybe.

It was urban legends and rumors like the ones you pointed out,that justified the republican controlled DOJ,to do fraudulent and phony cases of voter fraud against Democrats.(which is under investigation).

Of course,of the dozens of phony cases brought by the AG,against Democrats turned up nothing.But they were`nt supposed to.The phony cases were just to give republicans some "talking points" to club their opponents with,right before their elections.


Question to bushies ,neo-cons and republicans:

Why does the GOP have to spend twice as much money,and do all these illegal activities,just to get to even,with Democrats?



cloudboy -> RE: So how do the Dems get off so easily? (8/15/2007 7:42:13 AM)


Not to burst your bubble or anything, but our whole election set-up is a narrow two-party system. The Constitution and the electoral college serve to keep it this way. Hence, if you genuinely want some kind of federal electoral reform, changing the Constitution would be a good place to start.

As for Democrats being anti-Nader (assuming they are), the reason is simple. He serves to help the Republicans the same way Ross Perot helped the Democrats.

To change this dynamic, my suggestion would be electoral college reform. All candidates would win a proportion of the electoral votes available based on how much popular vote they received.

Hence, a candidate like Ross Perot who won 23% of the vote would win 23% of the electoral votes. As the owner of those votes, he could then broker them either to the Democrats or Republicans for platform conisiderations important to his constituency.

I'm sure there's a downside to this system, but if you want to open the races to different parties, I think this would be an effective method.



Owner59 -> RE: So how do the Dems get off so easily? (8/15/2007 8:26:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


Not to burst your bubble or anything, but our whole election set-up is a narrow two-party system. The Constitution and the electoral college serve to keep it this way. Hence, if you genuinely want some kind of federal electoral reform, changing the Constitution would be a good place to start.

As for Democrats being anti-Nader (assuming they are), the reason is simple. He serves to help the Republicans the same way Ross Perot helped the Democrats.

To change this dynamic, my suggestion would be electoral college reform. All candidates would win a proportion of the electoral votes available based on how much popular vote they received.

Hence, a candidate like Ross Perot who won 23% of the vote would win 23% of the electoral votes. As the owner of those votes, he could then broker them either to the Democrats or Republicans for platform conisiderations important to his constituency.

I'm sure there's a downside to this system, but if you want to open the races to different parties, I think this would be an effective method.


I would like to see the electoral collage removed and ended.

The electoral collage was created in a time, when news and info traveled as slow as the fastest horse.We don`t need it now.

It would strengthen our representative-democracy and make for less shenanigans.



CuriousLord -> RE: So how do the Dems get off so easily? (8/15/2007 10:33:41 AM)

Republicans are the ones with more power at the moment.  Democrats are afforded the luxury of critizing them over anything that goes wrong in the world, even when they have a hand in it.



Owner59 -> RE: So how do the Dems get off so easily? (8/15/2007 11:06:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Republicans are the ones with more power at the moment.  Democrats are afforded the luxury of critizing them over anything that goes wrong in the world, even when they have a hand in it.


whine ,whine,whine....Here,I`ll play a violin for you <softly rubs thumb and index finger tips together>



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.1875