WrestlingRasta Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 @mspart https://www.yahoo.com/news/dustup-between-joe-biden-hampshire-101902560.html 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohio Elite Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 Wow, talk about a blunder! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Husker_Du Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 i don't get it. the RNC isn't much better but the DNC seems to always trip over itself. 1 TBD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VakAttack Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 This has been known for awhile. The Ds switched their calendar (likely as political payback for Jim Clyburn being a key endorsement for Biden, but publicly the claim has been that SC is more representative of their diverse coalition). New Hampshire said "eff you" and held their primary anyway, which is in line with the independent streak of New Hampshire that both parties deal with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billyhoyle Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 1 hour ago, VakAttack said: This has been known for awhile. The Ds switched their calendar (likely as political payback for Jim Clyburn being a key endorsement for Biden, but publicly the claim has been that SC is more representative of their diverse coalition). New Hampshire said "eff you" and held their primary anyway, which is in line with the independent streak of New Hampshire that both parties deal with. There's something to the concept that New Hampshire is not representative of the democratic party-it's not just a DEI thing or payback. Clyburn may not even be around in four years when there's the next competitive democratic primary. Most of the nominees have lost NH. Biden lost it very convincingly four years ago despite leading in national polls and winning the nomination convincingly. Hillary lost it to overwhelmingly to Bernie in 2016 despite the primary not really being that close overall. Obama lost it to Hillary. Bill Clinton even lost it. Compare that to SC-where the winner of SC pretty much always wins the nomination. SC is just more indicative of where the democratic party is than NH. The problem with NH first is it isn't indicative of the party overall, so people like Bernie who are on the fringe appear to be more popular than he actually is. I think that's partly why the primaries are always such a shitshow-where it's a fight for the socialist vote in the early states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mspart Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 More of that danger to democracy stuff we keep hearing about. Now NH will have no representation to the convention or say in who should be the democratic contender. Perfectly in line with their current line of thinking. mspart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offthemat Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 1 hour ago, mspart said: More of that danger to democracy stuff we keep hearing about. Now NH will have no representation to the convention or say in who should be the democratic contender. Perfectly in line with their current line of thinking. mspart The dimocrat party is the least democratic party of all. Even if a candidate wins delegates, party selected Super Delegates have enough power to sway the election to their preferred candidate. While they screech about the electoral college and one man one vote, they strive to pack the court and add states to improve their chances. When in the minority, they wield the filibuster with a vengeance, and deride it as racist Jim Crow when in the majority. They have no, or at least little, virtue. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Husker_Du Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 agree with Offthemat. to go further they went through like five DNC chairs (3 in one cycle) in the recent past. and they essentially hand picked hillary and shafted others (namely Bernie). there's nothing democratic about them regarding their OWN party far less the political process of america where they want obfuscated elections filled with votes from non citizens and no voter ID to removing Trump from state ballots on a whim. it's gross. idk how anyone could be a democrat. 1 TBD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VakAttack Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 The concern on behalf of the Democratic party from you all is very touching and I'm sure comes from an honest place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Husker_Du Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 another person talking about the author/s instead of the validity and substance of the actual message. did i say anything incorrect? 1 TBD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VakAttack Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 8 minutes ago, Husker_Du said: another person talking about the author/s instead of the validity and substance of the actual message. did i say anything incorrect? Factually incorrect? The statement about Dems removing Trump from ballots on a whim is factually incorrect. The situation in Colorado was primarily Republican driven and certainly not a whim. The statement about going through DNC chairs is presumably correct, I don't know. The middle three sentences are mostly opinion, so not factually incorrect, but disagree with two of them, and agree with one (about handpicking Hillary over Bernie). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offthemat Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 40 minutes ago, VakAttack said: The situation in Colorado was primarily Republican driven and certainly not a whim. Fantasy. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jross Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 7 hours ago, VakAttack said: The middle three sentences are mostly opinion, so not factually incorrect, but disagree with two of them, and agree with one. In deference to the esteemed Vak, it is incumbent upon this humble observer to proffer a lighthearted rejoinder couched in the refined vernacular often ascribed to legal discourse. Pray, permit me to opine that Vak's commendable perspicacity in discerning the purportedly opinion-laden nature of the midmost three sentences is not without merit. However, one must proffer a jestful demurral, positing that the alignment of dissent with two assertions and concurrence with a singular proposition bears semblance to the capricious musings of a legal brief, where the scales of allegiance may tilt with an unpredictable equipoise. This amiable repartee, while embracing the spirit of camaraderie, endeavors to evoke a whimsical appreciation for the nuances of Vak's discerning critique. #LawyerSpeak 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offthemat Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 More like a pot/kettleish, TDS afflicted, over biased, fantasy driven, fact free opinion. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Husker_Du Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 On 1/19/2024 at 12:12 PM, VakAttack said: Factually incorrect? The statement about Dems removing Trump from ballots on a whim is factually incorrect. The situation in Colorado was primarily Republican driven and certainly not a whim. The statement about going through DNC chairs is presumably correct, I don't know. The middle three sentences are mostly opinion, so not factually incorrect, but disagree with two of them, and agree with one (about handpicking Hillary over Bernie). what?! 1) it was not republican driven. 2) it was decided on by one woke ass ivy-educated judge 3) there is no legal foundation to do so. 1 TBD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VakAttack Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 1 hour ago, Husker_Du said: what?! 1) it was not republican driven. 2) it was decided on by one woke ass ivy-educated judge 3) there is no legal foundation to do so. 1. https://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-gop-voters-lawsuit-disqualifying-trump-colorado-ballot-supreme-court-2023-12 2. It was not one judge, it's 5 so far. 3. There's obvious legal foundation, it just depends now on how SCOTUS interprets the 14th Amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le duke Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 what?! 1) it was not republican driven. 2) it was decided on by one woke ass ivy-educated judge 3) there is no legal foundation to do so. 1) The main named plaintiff is the former CO Speaker of the House…a Republican.2) It was decided by 5 (1 + 4 = 5) judges.3) You aren’t a lawyer, or a judge, nor have you been to law school. Maybe just take a knee and consider shutting your pie hole.Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Husker_Du Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 9 minutes ago, Le duke said: 1) The main named plaintiff is the former CO Speaker of the House…a Republican. it's amazing what dems will allow themselves to be naive about if the situation calls for it. 2) It was decided by 5 (1 + 4 = 5) judges. did you hear the interview with the 1? 3) You aren’t a lawyer, or a judge, nor have you been to law school. if you are correct and there is a law that says taking someone off a ballot b/c the judges 'think' the candidate did something, 1) let me know 2) it's abhorrent Maybe just take a knee and consider shutting your pie hole. you're wrong, so stfu and cry real dem tears Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 1 1 TBD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offthemat Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 On 1/20/2024 at 4:40 PM, VakAttack said: 1. https://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-gop-voters-lawsuit-disqualifying-trump-colorado-ballot-supreme-court-2023-12 2. It was not one judge, it's 5 so far. 3. There's obvious legal foundation, it just depends now on how SCOTUS interprets the 14th Amendment. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-ballot-removals-reflect-efforts-of-liberal-funded-groups/ar-AA1mykYu Eliminating a presidential candidate from the ballot has a history. The election of 1860 to be exact. The winner was a Republican. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackson Heslin Green Farms Academy, Connecticut Class of 2026 Committed to Bucknell Projected Weight: 149
Bailey Peichel Frazee, Minnesota Class of 2025 Committed to Minnesota State Moorhead Projected Weight: 141, 149
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now