On Jan 29, 9:16 pm, HK wrote:
Glad to see it. I've been a McCain fan ever since the Bushcrappers
screwed him over in South Carolina in 2000.

By Bushcrappers you of course mean legitimate voters. I know your
party is not really interested in voter integrity, but it really is
the American way of doing things. But I am having fun watching the
wheels come off your party's facade of racial and gender tolerance. I
think a huge chunk of your party's core may be having a revelation,
which could lead to a revolution Good for America to see the truth
finally come out.

On Jan 29, 8:32�pm, wrote:
On Jan 29, 9:16 pm, HK wrote:

Glad to see it. I've been a McCain fan ever since the Bushcrappers
screwed him over in South Carolina in 2000.

By Bushcrappers you of course mean legitimate voters. I know your
party is not really interested in voter integrity, but it really is
the American way of doing things. But I am having fun watching the
wheels come off your party's facade of racial and gender tolerance. I
think a huge chunk of your party's core may be having a revelation,
which could lead to a revolution Good for America to see the truth
finally come out.

By Bushcrappers Harry of course means the proBush push-poll callers
who phoned huge percentages of the "legitimate voters" in South
Carolina supposedly to ask questions about the voters attitudes toward
candidates.

One of the questions was along the line of, "Reflecting now on your
impression of John McCain, would your impression be better, worse, or
unchanged if you learned that he had fathered a mixed race child out
of wedlock with one of his secretaries?" Now of course the question
was entirely hypothetical, nobody ever *claimed* that McCain actually
fathered a mixed race child out of wedlock, the supposed "poll" simply
wanted to know how the voters reactions would change if they knew or
thought that he had.

Anyway, down South Carolina way those good ol' "legitimate voters"
probably figured that where there was smoke there just might be some
fire; and if getting a blow job from a white woman was enough grounds
to try to terminate one presidency then having an extra-marital affair
that resulted in a mixed race ******* child was no way to begin
another.

Here's hoping both of your parties can field quality candidates that
can run on the issues instead of trying to win with sickening, sleazy
tricks and character assassination.

On Jan 29, 10:47*pm, Chuck Gould wrote:


Here's hoping both of your parties can field quality candidates that
can run on the issues instead of trying to win with sickening, sleazy
tricks and character assassination.

chuck, now you're hypothetically speaking...

?:

On Jan 30, 12:07*am, Tim wrote:
On Jan 29, 10:47*pm, Chuck Gould wrote:



Here's hoping both of your parties can field quality candidates that
can run on the issues instead of trying to win with sickening, sleazy
tricks and character assassination.

chuck, now you're hypothetically speaking...

?:

Tim, the answer to your question will be the next big election issue
for the supreme court. Both republicans and democrats broke party
rules by making their primary in FLA before super tuesday. The
democratic party has decided to punish FLA by not counting its
delegates to the convension, the repubs did not. Thus, the repubs will
get delegates, the dems not, until the Clintons drag the party all the
way to the cheif justice.. Just like getting military votes thrown
out, trust me this is not over yet...

Just a simple guy who likes to play with sharks...

wrote in message
...
On Jan 30, 12:07 am, Tim wrote:
On Jan 29, 10:47 pm, Chuck Gould wrote:



Here's hoping both of your parties can field quality candidates that
can run on the issues instead of trying to win with sickening, sleazy
tricks and character assassination.

chuck, now you're hypothetically speaking...

?:

Tim, the answer to your question will be the next big election issue
for the supreme court. Both republicans and democrats broke party
rules by making their primary in FLA before super tuesday. The
democratic party has decided to punish FLA by not counting its
delegates to the convension, the repubs did not. Thus, the repubs will
get delegates, the dems not, until the Clintons drag the party all the
way to the cheif justice.. Just like getting military votes thrown
out, trust me this is not over yet...

Just a simple guy who likes to play with sharks...

Hope you're right. There's just something wrong when a political party can
deprive any voter of the right to have his vote counted in the selection
process. Might even be unconstitutional.

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 06:30:59 -0500, Jim wrote:


Hope you're right. There's just something wrong when a political party
can deprive any voter of the right to have his vote counted in the
selection process. Might even be unconstitutional.

If it was the election, definitely, but in the primary? I think the
parties hold all the cards. Unfortunately, I think they can set the
rules as we are not electing a President, just a party's candidate.

wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 06:30:59 -0500, Jim wrote:


Hope you're right. There's just something wrong when a political party
can deprive any voter of the right to have his vote counted in the
selection process. Might even be unconstitutional.

If it was the election, definitely, but in the primary? I think the
parties hold all the cards. Unfortunately, I think they can set the
rules as we are not electing a President, just a party's candidate.


The Democrats are going to need their supporters in Florida to carry
that state later this year, and I am sure some sort of accommodate will
be worked out so the Sunshine State delegates are seated at the
convention and have voting privileges. The party wants motivated voters.

As for Hillary's win in Florida, it gives her campaign a boost now and
maybe more later. The fact that she got more votes than anyone else in
either party speaks for itself.

I still would like to see a Hillary-Barack ticket. It would totally
motivate the Democratic base, and pull in the majority of independents.
I think such a ticket would result in a slaughter of the GOP for the
presidency and for real control of Congress. It's going to take that
sort of control to try to undo the horrors perpetrated on this country
by the Bush Administration.

On Jan 30, 3:30�am, "Jim" wrote:


Hope you're right. There's just something wrong when a political party can
deprive any voter of the right to have his vote counted in the selection
process. Might even be unconstitutional.


A party primary is not a state election. It's a polling of party
members to see how the state delegates should be appportioned and
assigned.
Talk aout depriving people of the right to vote.......you can't even
vote in a political primary (in most states) unless you are willing to
proclaim that you are either a Democrat or a Republican. Independents,
libertarians, socialists, etc are turned away from the polls.

We had an open primary in WA until a few years ago. I am no longer
allowed to participate in the primary elections in this state because
I am unwilling to lie and claim to be a D or an R. The justification
is: the parties have a right to pick thier own candidates.
Unaffiliated voters have the right to vote for whomever they choose in
the actual election.

The Constitution doesn't guarantee anybody the right to participate in
the pre-election processes of any specific political parties- and
that's what a primary election is about.

Chuck Gould wrote:
On Jan 30, 3:30�am, "Jim" wrote:

Hope you're right. There's just something wrong when a political party can
deprive any voter of the right to have his vote counted in the selection
process. Might even be unconstitutional.


A party primary is not a state election. It's a polling of party
members to see how the state delegates should be appportioned and
assigned.
Talk aout depriving people of the right to vote.......you can't even
vote in a political primary (in most states) unless you are willing to
proclaim that you are either a Democrat or a Republican. Independents,
libertarians, socialists, etc are turned away from the polls.

We had an open primary in WA until a few years ago. I am no longer
allowed to participate in the primary elections in this state because
I am unwilling to lie and claim to be a D or an R. The justification
is: the parties have a right to pick thier own candidates.
Unaffiliated voters have the right to vote for whomever they choose in
the actual election.

The Constitution doesn't guarantee anybody the right to participate in
the pre-election processes of any specific political parties- and
that's what a primary election is about.


On the other hand, I believe in closed primaries, and, to take it a step
further, I believe in voting-booth primaries only, not caucuses. Voters
should be able to decide on their own, in the privacy of a voting booth,
who they want to support.

Independents should be able to vote in primaries, too, but only to
indicate a preference, not to pick a party's candidate.

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
...
On Jan 30, 3:30?am, "Jim" wrote:


Hope you're right. There's just something wrong when a political party can
deprive any voter of the right to have his vote counted in the selection
process. Might even be unconstitutional.


A party primary is not a state election. It's a polling of party
members to see how the state delegates should be appportioned and
assigned.
Talk aout depriving people of the right to vote.......you can't even
vote in a political primary (in most states) unless you are willing to
proclaim that you are either a Democrat or a Republican. Independents,
libertarians, socialists, etc are turned away from the polls.

We had an open primary in WA until a few years ago. I am no longer
allowed to participate in the primary elections in this state because
I am unwilling to lie and claim to be a D or an R. The justification
is: the parties have a right to pick thier own candidates.
Unaffiliated voters have the right to vote for whomever they choose in
the actual election.

The Constitution doesn't guarantee anybody the right to participate in
the pre-election processes of any specific political parties- and
that's what a primary election is about.

The Primary elections are only part picking a party candidate. Also the
laws, bond issues etc. that affect the state are also voted on. If you are
not a Registered Democrat, why should you get to vote on who you want to
represent the Democrat club in the big show? Is the way most of the states
have set up their picking of the candidates for President. It is up to the
states to pick how they pick a candidate for POTUS. Read that last
statement again. At one time it was the state Legislatures who submitted
the candidate. But the people wanted a say and the Founding Fathers left it
up to the state on how they pick a candidate.