spit in the ocean !

[deltecs]

Yup,,,that's all well and good.  Now, can you explain what the super delegates are for?

...TM7

I think you had better research the Democratic and Republican National Committees.  I know of no law that requires super delegates.  Does the Independence Party have super delegates?  If so, who are they.  Does the Green party have super delegates and who are they?

[SHOOTALL]

when did laws ever get in the way ?

[deltecs]

There is nothing undemocratic about selecting a party affiliation to vote in primaries.  Anyone can declare themselves to be undeclared.  I am.  So, I cannot vote in some closed primaries.  I can still vote in national, state and local elections.  I can write the candidate of my choice on the ballot.  Just because one doesn't like the way the 2 party system is operated does not mean the system is not democratic.  It means that party politics and selection are left to the party for determination of candidates and not necessarily the voters.  You don't have to be a party affiliate.  That's the democratic attitude in a Republic.

[deltecs]

What!? Then why even have caucusi or primaries.? Republic democraticism has nothing to do with this process. Superdelegates are clearly  a design to circumvent the democratic process and is indefensible, unless you believe in the duopoly directorate.

...TM7

Political parties are organized for the same reasons as any other group of people who want to enforce their decisions on others.  More people thinking alike, more power and influence over others.  That has nothing to do with democracy per se.  A person still does not have to become a party member, as that is democracy.  So political parties institute super delegates.  Not all parties do, no law exists mandating such delegates, and no one has to be a member of one that does.  That is democracy.  So what if you don't like a particular parties selection methods.  Don't belong.  But don't tell me it is undemocratic just because you don't believe in its policies as a member.  That was your choice or not.  You want on a primary ballot, then get the required number of petitioners to support a candidate and it will be on the ballot.  You can even choose if that party's candidate is closed to other voters not a member of your party.  All you have to do is get enough petitions.  That's democratic isn't it?

[Chilachuck]

Fred was the only candidate I half way liked the looks of. Now?

If I found any of the three finalists on the bottom of my rubber boots, I would not wash them off. I'd burn the boots.

Questor, the correct target for projectile vomiting is not the ocean.

[beemanbeme]

Uuuuh, Dixie Dude, if you haven't noticed, the population centers already control the nation. Via the elections and the media.  The last time I was in Wy, I was asking a rancher about the ban on 1080. He pointed out that the people in NYC ran his ranch for him. One burough of NYC could cancel out every vote in WY.  The population of Wyoming isn't gonna change.  You will still have two senators and 1 representative. But I would feel that 750,000 votes could come closer to swinging an election than 3 electoral votes. This is why the candidates spend so much time in Calif and NYC. But, just maybe, your 3/4 mil and the folks from upstate NY and northern Calif could be heard. Then maybe, just maybe, the pols would be forced to realize that this is a diverse country with unique needs in different areas. I remember the big flap when, with a lot of wind and posturing, it became against the federal law to have a gun within 500 feet (yards?) of a school. This was great for Casper but what about Kaycee??  Where every truck had a rifle in the back window?

Oh Dee, I think the ideal voter is any and every American citizen. Not just the ones that walk lock step with you. As I said, the greater the data imput the more nearly correct the coutcoming information will be. And regardless of your opinion of us ordinary folks, we do have an amazing knack for getting it right every once in a while. 

[deltecs]

What!? Then why even have caucusi or primaries.? Republic democraticism has nothing to do with this process. Superdelegates are clearly  a design to circumvent the democratic process and is indefensible, unless you believe in the duopoly directorate.

...TM7

Political parties are organized for the same reasons as any other group of people who want to enforce their decisions on others.  More people thinking alike, more power and influence over others.  That has nothing to do with democracy per se.  A person still does not have to become a party member, as that is democracy.  So political parties institute super delegates.  Not all parties do, no law exists mandating such delegates, and no one has to be a member of one that does.  That is democracy.  So what if you don't like a particular parties selection methods.  Don't belong.  But don't tell me it is undemocratic just because you don't believe in its policies as a member.  That was your choice or not.  You want on a primary ballot, then get the required number of petitioners to support a candidate and it will be on the ballot.  You can even choose if that party's candidate is closed to other voters not a member of your party.  All you have to do is get enough petitions.  That's democratic isn't it?

.
I'm sorry...I am not following this explanation. I mean no disrespect, but can you restate this in another way or more distilled?

...TM7

You brought up super delegates.  Just how can you justify that super delegates from a particular political platform deprives you of democracy?  You don't have to join the party.  You don't have to vote for the party candidate.  You don't have to have super delegates in other political parties.  Where is the loss of democracy.  You don't live in a Democracy, you live in a Republic, where you elect representatives to select the people in office and those people indirectly govern in your name.  This country is not a true democracy with every citizen directly voting for the candidate of their choice where the majority wins.  It is a representative Republic, wherein checks and balances of our elected representatives select our office holders.  If you thought otherwise, it is time for a civics lesson.  I cannot see any conspiracy or loss of democracy just because a party chooses its candidates with super delegates.  If you don't like this method of selection, don't join the party.  I agree that the Demoncratic party certainly limits its members vote value, but you don't have to be a member of it.  Maybe the rest of the Democrats membership will realize just how little their individual vote counts and they will drop party affiliation, but I doubt it.  Most Democrats I've talked to, have the irritating habit using emotion and social well being as the end all, beat all, answer for civic problems.  It is unlikely then that they would logically conclude their vote counts less than others in the same party and react accordingly. 

[deltecs]

So, you're down with the fact that Party elites just meddle with the process of (so much for 'government by and for the people') until they get the candidates in office these elites want, by circumventing the primary system of people's choice. All hail The Party...bow to the Party, all hail the caesars.  Strange how one of our major exports is said to be Democracy,,,kinda rings hollow. It seems we have slipped into a contrived oligopoly/corptocracy, and all is but a shadow show.  This highlights why at this time we need multiple parties, and fast.

...TM7

It seems that anyone can read logic, hear logic, use logic and then come to a conclusion substantially different than reality.  Just because you do not like the Democrats party method of choosing candidates, you come to the erroneous conclusion that the voter has no say in elections.  When are you going to get it through your head that you don't have to be a party member, not all parties have super delegates, and you can vote for and write in candidates of your choice.  That is the definition of Democracy.  We have multiple parties, and the primary system was instituted for parties to find out which candidates the people like.  You do not directly vote for the President.  You vote indirectly for them.  Your vote goes toward the electoral college designate, who votes for the candidate directly.  This is called representative democracy.  You can try and label it anyway you want but that is not going to redefine our system of government.  This country has never directly elected the President merely on popular vote.  Get over it and learn about our system of government before calling it names and attempting to find a conspiracy here with this system.

[Sourdough]

I feel the way we choose who gets to run is flawed.  I think the people should vote all on the same day in a primary election.  Republicans on the Republican ticket and democrats on the democrat ticket.  Independents should have to decide one party or the other for that day, or not vote.  Then on election day we vote in the most popular person amongst all voters.  Letting a few early states decide who is running is not right.  I feel that a lot of people in the country would have rather had Fred Thompson than McCain, or Mitt Romney over McCain.  I for one would have rather had either one over McCain.

I for one am hoping Hillery gets elected, I don't like what anyone of the three will do.  But I feel she will be the least effective at getting bad things done.  Also there is a good chance she will fall on her face and have to be replaced.  At least if she is at the helm when the boat sinks, the republicans stand a good chance of putting it back together right.

[deltecs]

I feel the way we choose who gets to run is flawed.  I think the people should vote all on the same day in a primary election.  Republicans on the Republican ticket and democrats on the democrat ticket.  Independents should have to decide one party or the other for that day, or not vote.  Then on election day we vote in the most popular person amongst all voters.  Letting a few early states decide who is running is not right.  I feel that a lot of people in the country would have rather had Fred Thompson than McCain, or Mitt Romney over McCain.  I for one would have rather had either one over McCain.

I for one am hoping Hillery gets elected, I don't like what anyone of the three will do.  But I feel she will be the least effective at getting bad things done.  Also there is a good chance she will fall on her face and have to be replaced.  At least if she is at the helm when the boat sinks, the republicans stand a good chance of putting it back together right.

Normally, I agree with most of your ideas.  However, I have to disagree with this one.  I cannot vote for Clintons, in plural, as that is what we get.  I cannot vote for Obama, who is a church member with a manifesto of supporting African civil ills and masks its true goal in the name of Christianity.  How can I endorse a candidate like Clintons, knowing and proving their violation of the Constitution by not recognizing the 2nd Amendment?  Do you honestly think that other rights will not be violated as President, or uphold the oath of office?  Obama's church focuses on racial discrimination according to its manifesto.  Do you honestly believe that Obama, himself, will do anything less?  At least McCain is a known entity, not the best certainly, but he has voted for 83% of conservative values in Congress.  His position with regard to the 2nd is weak, but at least it is not non existent, as are the other 2.  I really worry about either Democrat this election, if one wins.  McCain if he wins will have to somewhat toe the line to keep any conservative base whatever.  You can certainly bet that neither of the other 2 will do any such thing and, in fact, do the opposite.

[jimster]

My wife and I had a talk about all this last night and we have decided for the first time ever in our lives, we won't vote for any of the three, Obama, Hillary, or McCain.  I have never been a member
of any party, but have voted for Republicans because that is where the conservative base is.  Not any more.  I'm writing something in for president if it comes to these three, will vote as best I can for the Congress, and keep voting at the state level.....but I won't sell my soul.  I won't prop up the Republican party because they deserve to hit rock bottom also, they sold their souls.
I also don't believe in "reaching out" and coming to a compromise with anyone one or any party that does not share my convictions.   
I also don't believe that any Senator is capable of changing anything, if they could not change anything sitting around with 500 plus people.  Congress has been worthless as a whole body, with the Senate being downright embarrassing. 
I hate it when these so called conservatives compare themselves to Reagan, none of them are anything like that....there is a man who had deep love for his country and had real convictions regardless if you agreed with him or not. 
I think in order for things to get better it needs to hit rock bottom, and I think it will.   When the American people have had enough it's possible we could get back to the basics....but I also think it might be too late for that without some kind of real movement in the country by real conservatives.   
The Dem party that once was has been dead long ago...the Republican party has just died.   Both parties have evolved into a slithering mass of compromises and selling out the people that voted for them.   I will survive by being conservative in the home and with my family, and practicing what I believe right here.  The presidential elections are over already for me.   

[deltecs]

So, the term Republic as used by our founding fathers and currently defined in posts above, is still the same type of government here in the US.  So what incremental rationalism is referred to as a decrease in democracy.  Super delegates are a political party option, not a requirement and does not affect democracy in a Republic.  It is still simple and only confusing when one wants it to be.   Super delegates elected by national party committee are similar in context to former USSR Politburo members.  These party officials do not have faith in their membership to elect favorable candidates for office, as they may conflict with party platform goals.  The Democratic Party leans heavily on socialistic economic policies and Marxist type of government.  That is the true reason for its super delegates.  This is why I am not a Democrat.  I like Capitalism and Republic form of government.

[SHOOTALL]

NO ! not really
the communist party in Russia is the ONLY party .
In the USA we have more than one and if voters wanted they could start a new one ( which might be a good idea )
it is a shame that when people start to realize that they may not get what they want because they get out voted they cry foul . OUR SYSTEM IS WORKING !

[SHOOTALL]

I won't disagree with your post !
But will offer the laws and means are in place to change ! We the people have to do it or it won't happen and that my friend is the cause of our problems to begin with we the people won't act !

[SHOOTALL]

That's a good point !
the Soap box to the Ballot box to the Ammo box !
The Soap box ain't looking to good now is it ?

[beemanbeme]

Thank you, Shootall. You made my point. We have to get the people to the polls. Even if they are people we don't like. Even if we have to do it with penalties. We can't have an armed revolution, (why do you think pols are REALLY so pro gun control) so we have to do it at the polls.

[SHOOTALL]

don't agree with penatlies , then we would not be free !

[Dee]

Ah yes. Forced voting! That'll fix this country. Some SHOOTALL, are "SOCIALISTS", and don't even know it. Agreed?

[SHOOTALL]

citizen vs. subject !
big difference , one implies ownership of country by the people the other ownership of people by who ever runs country !

[deltecs]

NO ! not really
the communist party in Russia is the ONLY party .
In the USA we have more than one and if voters wanted they could start a new one ( which might be a good idea )
it is a shame that when people start to realize that they may not get what they want because they get out voted they cry foul . OUR SYSTEM IS WORKING !

.
Yes, and some political scientist now say we have but one party...the duopoly; or the media party; or the lobby party. Whatever the case is in extreme critical talk it looks to me like the superdelegate deal is the undoing of we the people, and the doing of we the elites. BTW, I originally researched some of this superdelegate info off of the Huffington Post, a so-called liberal progressive news and analysis site.  They seemed pretty astounded with this development and seizure of 'democracy'.

....TM7

Yes, and at the same time some scientists are saying we have one party, duopoly, media party, or lobby party, there are many others who say it is a Republic, with multiple parties.  I think those political scientists who tout duopoly are professors at Berkeley.  That is so they can change the system to the one party.

[deltecs]

Duopoly,,,means two parties, all be it integrated for each other.   Doesn't take a Berkeley professor to figure that out.  The more parties the better as far as I'm concerned, and the more democracy the better too.  So, here's a toast:  "long live the Republic and Democracy"....cheers....!

....TM7

I can agree with you on this one entirely.  There is large distinction though between the Democrat and Republican parties.  An amicus brief was submitted in support of respondent Heller, in the DC v Heller case.  Of the 55 Senators signatory in support of individual firearms right out of a possible 100, only 9 Democrats agreed.  Of the 232 Democrats in the House, only 68 Democrats agreed and signed on.  No Congressman from Massachusetts or Rhode Island supported Heller, neither Representative nor Senator.  Only one Representative from New Jersey and he was Republican.  Senator John McCain did support the amicus brief and signed it.  Neither Democrat Clinton or Obama supported this 2nd Amendment right and had every chance to do so.  It is definite then, with their positions and interpretation of the Constitution, and how each would treat their oath of office.  Remember all House of Representatives are running for office.  Now is the chance to remove those who do not support the Constitution and throw them out of office.  Every totalitarian form of government in history first restricted the right to keep and bear arms.  The Democratic Party is anti firearms and has an agenda that wants to restrict your right to firearms ownership, as indicated by this amicus support or lack thereof.  Vote Democratic in any election and you lose your rights, as this is the party platform agenda.  Take control of government and keep it for the ones in power.  The proof is here, whether or not anyone wants to believe it, is real and true.

[ncsurveyor]

Remember all House of Representatives are running for office.  Now is the chance to remove those who do not support the Constitution and throw them out of office

Should make this single statement our (collective) signature on every forum were on.