Austinist: Extra Extra

reynard

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 01:51:51 -0600

What does that have to do with anything? We're criticizing the Texas Democratic Party, not American politics in general. But why should Kucinich, who is a Democrat, run as an independent? One must win the Primary to be on the ballot as a Democrat. Anyway, it doesn't matter because the supreme court ruled against Kucinich. Which is bullshit, but I don't care to discuss it with a puerile individual such as yourself. If it's not clear what I'm saying, I'm saying, "fuck you."

mdahmus

Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:15:09 -0600

Dear dumbass: There is no requirement that one be the winner of the Dem or the Rep primary to be on the general election ballot. The primary is NOT the election. How clear can I make this?

reynard

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 15:46:11 -0600

Nice analogy, AsherBaruch; perfect, actually. I have nothing else to say.

AsherBaruch

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 08:09:15 -0600

The Party, by not including Kucinich in the primary, are indeed restricting his right to run for the office of President of the United States. After all, how can he win a primary if he's not allowed on the ballot? What's ludicrous is that you feel this country should be run like your Volleyball Club. In a world of Coke and Pepsi, you would rather the RC Cola drinkers didn't exist. Time to take that wool off from over your eyes, dude.

mdahmus

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 07:30:20 -0600

The party didn't do anything to restrict his rights to run for office. They restricted his right to run in THEIR primary. You guys continue to conflate "primary" with "election". If I decide to have an election among the members of my old volleyball club for Grand Poobah, and I don't allow you to run because you haven't paid club dues, am I being a ludicrous unconstitutional fascist?

reynard

Mon, 14 Jan 2008 21:54:26 -0600

Those polls mean nothing; only Iowa, Wyoming, and New Hampshire have voted, and thus, only they have been campaigned. And, as I said, McCain is in third. His entire staff left him at one point, and he's running out of money. Anytime a group (party, whatever) of people restricts the rights of a candidate to run for office because of his refusal to agree with some TRIVIAL concern like this is ludicrous, fascist, and unconstitutional. Maybe you think my politics are misguided, but I think you are wrong, tragically so.

AsherBaruch

Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:37:04 -0600

I guess I'm too trivial to be taken seriously. Dammit all, but then it's my fault that I don't believe this country should be run into the ground by massive corporate interests. If only I can be a tool like you, M1KE.

mdahmus

Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:56:36 -0600

reynard, a private party cannot engage in fascism. By definition. Unless the Dems and Reps have made it impossible for an independent candidate with a non-trivial following to get on the general election ballot, the rules governing primary can and should be completely up to them. (note the phrase "non-trivial following").

Barney Noodles

Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:24:39 -0600

to wit, reynard: mccain is ahead in nevada and florida and close second in michigan. he is now leading among republicans in the two national polls out this morning . obama would have a better chance than hilary, for sure, and i understand you are for her, just know the facts about who is where right now.

Barney Noodles

Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:51:22 -0600

Reynard, your analysis of the national polls and thinking hilary would kill mccain is very misguided.

reynard

Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:24:18 -0600

Actually, mdahmus, I think you need to learn what fascism is, rather than looking it up in a dictionary. And your comments in general sound just like the idiots who were skewered in the Nader doc, Unreasonable Man, which you should probably watch.

mdahmus

Mon, 14 Jan 2008 08:27:09 -0600

Somebody needs to look up the definition of "fascism". And if Kucinich doesn't support the Democratic Party enough to swear to endorse their nominee, he can run as an independent. Nothing stopping him. And your comments about how the Republicans aren't going to win sounds like Naderites, circa 2000. How'd that work out anyways?

reynard

Mon, 14 Jan 2008 01:36:33 -0600

John McCain? He's in third place in the primary! Hillary Clinton could lose an eye and still win over his foolish ass. Besides that, there is no way in hell a republican is going to win this election. Anyway, I'm all for Obama and have been since the beginning of this farce. But, again, I will repeat myself: Oaths and pledges and other such nonesense are elements of fascism. This has nothing whatsoever to do with who will be president and everything to do with principles, which is something Kucinich actually has. Principles.

AsherBaruch

Mon, 14 Jan 2008 00:14:30 -0600

It's bad enough that Independent candidates have to jump through hoops to get in debates and have some national exposure. It's worse when one of the two parties in this country forces their own candidates to reign in their thinking so that they succumb to the "party line".

Benj

Sun, 13 Jan 2008 23:48:48 -0600

'The Party' can have whatever rules it wants? They supposedly speak for the largest plurality of voters in the country. Why can 'The Party' do whatever it wants? In this sense, 'The Party' is probably between 3 and 12 people. Also, a loyalty oath would imply an underlying state of distrust between parties. What the fuck? Why do we insist on making communism look good?

Barney Noodles

Sun, 13 Jan 2008 21:02:08 -0600

"Even when they know they're going to win and can do whatever the hell they want..." um... Clinton would get whipped by McCain. Vote Obama!

reynard

Sun, 13 Jan 2008 20:10:52 -0600

I am well aware that they can and will do whatever they want, but that doesn't change the fact that it's textbook fascism and this is reminding me exactly why I've always hated the democratic party. Even when they know they're going to win and can do whatever the hell they want, the war pig mentality still finds a way to shine through layers and layers of b.s. about change and whatever else Hillary and Obama are talking about. Actually, I'd really like to know how Barack feels about this. I don't even have to wonder what Hillary thinks; it was probably her idea.

mdahmus

Sun, 13 Jan 2008 15:52:55 -0600

He most definitely does have to sign the oath to be on the ballot for the Democratic Party. As happywaffle says, they can make whatever stupid rules they want. (And I don't think this is a particularly stupid rule; it protects against a spoiler candidate who runs only to ruin somebody else's chances).

reynard

Sun, 13 Jan 2008 02:17:08 -0600

This is rediculous. Kucinich doesn't have to sign some oath to be on the ballot; that's un-American.

happywaffle

Sat, 12 Jan 2008 22:46:56 -0600

All due respect to your first two points. But the Democratic party can have whatever rules it wants. Doesn't mean it's a good idea - it's pretty stupid - but it's their business.

AsherBaruch

Sat, 12 Jan 2008 12:30:20 -0600

Electronic voting machines, a two party system, and the insistence that all "viable" candidates sign on to support the eventual winner of the election, no matter whether they support them or not. Ah, yes, democracy. Can you smell it? Or did someone just drive over a skunk?