home
Double Standards | 96 comments (96 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Goose (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by Kathy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:34:03 AM EST
Gander?

Could you explain this more? (5.00 / 2) (#50)
by Kathy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:34:15 AM EST
Which rules exactly is Clinton trying to break?  Please provide links and solid evidence to back up your statement.

[ Parent ]
I think the commenter is referring to (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:45:53 AM EST
Clinton campaign's request the eligibility of TX caucus voters be verified.  However, she raised the same concern before the TX primary/caucuses.

[ Parent ]
None (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by waldenpond on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:10:27 PM EST
Clinton is proposing any rule.  The rules have always held that a state that is stripped of it's delegates has the right to appeals to the credentialing committee or develop a process to seat it's delegates i.e. vote.  The states, candidates and DNC are going throught the process.  The credentials committee will be unable to reach a supermajority decision as the committee is sat according to delegate apportionment.  Stalling is being used so no process can be developed in time.

[ Parent ]
In reality (none / 0) (#97)
by Steve M on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:04:24 PM EST
No one, including the Obama campaign, thought the pledge required the campaigns to take their names off the Michigan ballot.  This has been discussed many times here.

[ Parent ]
No (none / 0) (#99)
by Marvin42 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:58:43 PM EST
It means I do not run ads, campaign, etc. Which none of them did in MI. It does NOT say "I shall remove my name to make people in Iowa and New Hampshire like me more." It also does not say that if that short sighted move backfires later I get to claim the votes don't count.

[ Parent ]
How is (5.00 / 4) (#56)
by Marvin42 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:51:33 AM EST
Checking the validity of the signature (essentially confirming the rules were followed) exactly BREAKING the rules.

Wow we have now entered into Orwellian territory as far as Clinton hate goes.

[ Parent ]

Orwellian? (1.00 / 1) (#70)
by squeaky on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:17:59 PM EST
Bad reference in this case.

First off it is not about checking the validity of signatures it is rechecking the validity of signatures.

Second, suggesting that people will cheat the government is a good argument for big brother.

So if anyone is making a case for surveillance, by your argument it is HRC.

[ Parent ]

That wasn't the reference (none / 0) (#74)
by Marvin42 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:23:42 PM EST
It was redefining words to mean the exact opposite. Like to follow the rules and check the validity is CHANGING the rules.

And let me understand: what is you position on Sen Obamas "concerns" on vote fraud for a redo? Because if you think its valid then in once case concern for fraud is good, in the other its bad.

[ Parent ]

Well If Redefining Words (none / 0) (#81)
by squeaky on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:34:16 PM EST
Is your main concern,  you are the one guilty of doing that. The correct words would be re-verify, but that would weaken your argument.

Using Orwell does not help your argment in any way, especially when you yourself are being misleading.

[ Parent ]

If you say so (none / 0) (#82)
by Marvin42 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:35:39 PM EST
I think you missed my point, but no worries.

[ Parent ]

Double Standards | 96 comments (96 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft