14 Nov 22
@wildgrass saidAllegations of election fraud are protected by the 1st constitutional amendment. You do not agree with the constitution.
I do not agree. We have a legal system to deal with disputes. If you lose those disputes, then you lose. Admit defeat.
You are proposing something that is unconstitutional. Let us all know when you repeal the 1st amendment.
"We have a legal system to deal with disputes"
And you want to make it illegal to dispute elections so how can the legal system get involved if it will end your political career? You are suggesting a catch22 scenario. You clearly did not think this through.
14 Nov 22
@metal-brain saidListen 💩 for brains the voters keep announcing their own verdict on anti democratic election deniers. They are not beholden to keep conspiracy theorists like yourself happy.
Republicans didn't start that, it was Hillary Clinton that started that.
I don't recall you complaining about her election denying.
Admit it, this thread is all about keeping Trump from running again. You cannot do that without repealing the 1st constitutional amendment. If you have a problem with the bill of rights, just say so.
If the Republican Party was not full of halfwitted election denying candidates they would be in control of both houses by a good margin come January. Swing voters and moderate republicans will not cast a vote for someone who does not respect the democratic process.
14 Nov 22
@metal-brain saidNo. You're not reading again. The legal system finds fraud, then the system corrects it. The politician alleges fraud there are plenty of avenues for resolving it. But if after these proceedings are over the politician running for office asserts a stolen or rigged election that they voluntarily participated in, they should be disqualified.
Allegations of election fraud are protected by the 1st constitutional amendment. You do not agree with the constitution.
You are proposing something that is unconstitutional. Let us all know when you repeal the 1st amendment.
"We have a legal system to deal with disputes"
And you want to make it illegal to dispute elections so how can the legal system get invol ...[text shortened]... our political career? You are suggesting a catch22 scenario. You clearly did not think this through.
@metal-brain saidIn the Democratic Party, superdelegates can no longer vote on the Presidential nomination at the Convention at least if the outcome is in any doubt:
Would you be willing to get rid of the super delegates?
"Superdelegates will no longer vote on the first ballot at the convention unless there is no doubt about the outcome. To win on the first ballot, the frontrunner must secure the majority of pledged delegates available during the nominating contests (primary and caucus) leading up to the Democratic Convention. There are 3,979 total pledged delegates, with the total required being 1,991. (Here's why it's not 1,990.)"
https://www.270towin.com/content/superdelegate-rule-changes-for-the-2020-democratic-nomination
In theory they could have a vote after the first ballot but:
"But no convention has gone past the first ballot since 1952"
https://www.history.com/news/contested-conventions-presidential-elections
14 Nov 22
@wildgrass saidLike they found in Saddam's Iraq?
No. You're not reading again. The legal system finds fraud, then the system corrects it. The politician alleges fraud there are plenty of avenues for resolving it. But if after these proceedings are over the politician running for office asserts a stolen or rigged election that they voluntarily participated in, they should be disqualified.
No evidence there either. Same thing with Syria's Assad.
Those must be legit democracies. They found no evidence of election fraud.
14 Nov 22
@metal-brain saidWho is they?
Like they found in Saddam's Iraq?
No evidence there either. Same thing with Syria's Assad.
Those must be legit democracies. They found no evidence of election fraud.
14 Nov 22
@no1marauder saidSanders won Michigan and it was cheated from him using super delegates.
In the Democratic Party, superdelegates can no longer vote on the Presidential nomination at the Convention at least if the outcome is in any doubt:
"Superdelegates will no longer vote on the first ballot at the convention unless there is no doubt about the outcome. To win on the first ballot, the frontrunner must secure the majority of pledged delegates available duri ...[text shortened]... irst ballot since 1952"
https://www.history.com/news/contested-conventions-presidential-elections
14 Nov 22
@metal-brain saidIt wasn't "cheated"; the rules at the time were followed. Now they've been changed, so find something else Jimmy Dore wants you to complain about.
Sanders won Michigan and it was cheated from him using super delegates.
15 Nov 22
@metal-brain saidSo what happened then? I thought maybe you were referring to a specific example. My mistake.
Anybody trying to prove election fraud.
@no1marauder saidThe rules allowed super delegates to cheat Sanders of his win and give it to HRC. Your argument is that the cheating was legal so it is not cheating. Would you be happier if I called it gerrymandering? Is that the term for legal cheating?
It wasn't "cheated"; the rules at the time were followed. Now they've been changed, so find something else Jimmy Dore wants you to complain about.
Obama once claimed democracy was threatened by GOP gerrymandering. I suppose only democrats are allowed to complain about that.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/08/politics/obama-redistricting-democracy-voting/index.html
Super delegate gerrymandering is not how democracy is supposed to work.
Do you agree or disagree?
"Now they've been changed"
I didn't know that. Are you sure?
What is your source of information?
15 Nov 22
@metal-brain saidDo you even read other people's posts? I already showed you how the rules were changed and provided a citation.
The rules allowed super delegates to cheat Sanders of his win and give it to HRC. Your argument is that the cheating was legal so it is not cheating. Would you be happier if I called it gerrymandering? Is that the term for legal cheating?
Obama once claimed democracy was threatened by GOP gerrymandering. I suppose only democrats are allowed to complain about that.
ht ...[text shortened]... Now they've been changed"
I didn't know that. Are you sure?
What is your source of information?
15 Nov 22
@metal-brain said"you want to make it illegal to dispute elections"
Allegations of election fraud are protected by the 1st constitutional amendment. You do not agree with the constitution.
You are proposing something that is unconstitutional. Let us all know when you repeal the 1st amendment.
"We have a legal system to deal with disputes"
And you want to make it illegal to dispute elections so how can the legal system get invol ...[text shortened]... our political career? You are suggesting a catch22 scenario. You clearly did not think this through.
You can dispute it all you want. In court. With proof. If you lose your case though you don't get to yell fire anymore. Free speech doesn't cover that. Facts and feelings and all that
15 Nov 22
@no1marauder saidCopy and paste the parts you already read. I always do that for you.
Do you even read other people's posts? I already showed you how the rules were changed and provided a citation.