RE: Do Democrats Believe in a Democratic Republic

RE: Do Democrats Believe in a Democratic Republic (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

thompsonx -> RE: Do Democrats Believe in a Democratic Republic (3/14/2016 8:19:05 AM)
ORIGINAL: bounty44 i agree it is often difficult to weed through what is true and false on the internet, and misattribution can be a problem and if im guilty of contributing to that, im happy to apologize and be more careful, at least in my wording. so that said---forget then if its ben franklin or not, the quote remains and its germane to the topic. Except that lambs and wolves do not vote nor carry firearms. It is simply a simple minded platitude for the simple minded ,which you seem happy to repeat.

Awareness -> RE: Do Democrats Believe in a Democratic Republic (3/14/2016 8:25:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey So if, as I intrepret DWS, why conduct a primary? Just have the DNC decide who will be their candidate. Superdelegates exist so the DNC can control who gets the nomination. It's a vile repudiation of every democratic principle upon which America was founded. Ironically, it's the GOP who needs them and I'm betting the party leadership will be bringing them in - just as soon as they can wrest control of their party back from the redneck uprising.

mnottertail -> RE: Do Democrats Believe in a Democratic Republic (3/14/2016 8:39:26 AM)
as I pointed out the republican have superdelegates. lots of em.

Awareness -> RE: Do Democrats Believe in a Democratic Republic (3/14/2016 9:45:11 AM)
The 'superdelegate' label has been applied to the GOP representatives, but those guys have no agency. They're bound by the rules to vote for the popular winner in their state. Thus, they represent the will of the people, not the party.

mnottertail -> RE: Do Democrats Believe in a Democratic Republic (3/14/2016 9:52:31 AM)
I see no evidence of that, can I get a citation of that rule, looks to me like they are free to go as they please. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/the-g-o-p-s-fuzzy-delegate-math/ quick scroll to the chart. Are they in fact incorrectly characterizing what is doing there? Is a super delegate more than an uncommitted free to vote as they please person?

KenDckey -> RE: Do Democrats Believe in a Democratic Republic (3/14/2016 11:19:36 AM)
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/can-gop-superdelegates-stop-trump/article/2580289 quote: "Karl is dead wrong, which is demonstrated if you read the delegate packet that was issued," said Virginia Republican National Committeeman Morton Blackwell. That packet, Blackwell told the Examiner, "points to a section of the rules to which people have not paid attention. It says that all of the delegates shall be bound by the results of the primary." "There aren't any delegates in a state that has a primary that are not going to be bound," Blackwell said. "Karl's article is just dead wrong. He didn't understand the rules, and suggested there are 210 superdelegates who are free to vote as they please." Specifically, a cover letter to the packet states, "Each state's delegation (other than delegates elected on a primary ballot) is bound by the results of the state's presidential preference vote." 2nd vote I think everyone can vote as they please

mnottertail -> RE: Do Democrats Believe in a Democratic Republic (3/14/2016 11:34:42 AM)
Washington examiner is not credible. However, I see that there is some difference of opinion, and it may be true that they are pledged by some de facto mechanisms.

bounty44 -> RE: Do Democrats Believe in a Democratic Republic (3/14/2016 11:57:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I see no evidence of that, can I get a citation of that rule, looks to me like they are free to go as they please. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/the-g-o-p-s-fuzzy-delegate-math/ quick scroll to the chart. Are they in fact incorrectly characterizing what is doing there? Is a super delegate more than an uncommitted free to vote as they please person? its still fascinating to me that seemingly blogs are okay when they suit your purpose, but otherwise are "nutsucker slobber blogs with no credibility" when they don't. a similar thing (as evidenced above by your Washington examiner statement) occurs for pretty much every source that a conservative, libertarian or republican on the board uses.

mnottertail -> RE: Do Democrats Believe in a Democratic Republic (3/14/2016 12:01:38 PM)
Nutsuckers slobber blogs are widely and well known (and have been voluminously documented) to be overwhelmingly factless horseshit.

rkfdbdsm -> RE: Do Democrats Believe in a Democratic Republic (3/14/2016 1:41:57 PM)
quote: a similar thing (as evidenced above by your Washington examiner statement) occurs for pretty much every source that a conservative, libertarian or republican on the board uses. While I won't comment on MOST of these sources, the Washington Examiner HAS been shown repeatedly to be a propaganda rag of no journalistic value what so ever. FAUX NEWS, sued by the FCC for blatant falsehoods in the past, is a more reliable source of information. The most significant use of the Examiner is to lend credibility to otherwise unsupported statements and claims made by a handful of the more reactionary elements in the GOP or their allies. This isn't just left-wing hype... even staunchly conservative journalists and publications have denounced the Examiner. While I find FAUX NEWS to be a farce, at least they base their bullshit in truth most of the time, something that cannot be said for the Washington Examiner! But I suppose that's to be expected by a publication with a reader base so small it could not survive without being subsidized by GOP financiers (something that has happened the life of the Examiner, not just since e-mags started killing hardcopy).

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875