|
Edited on Sun Mar-09-08 10:37 AM by OPERATIONMINDCRIME
"So you are wanting the states to have no control of how party politics are run in their own state?"
I never said such a thing, anywhere. Your insinuation of such is ridiculous. What I said is that we should all lobby to have them removed. Did I say we shouldn't do so on a state to state level? Oh, I didn't? Oh, you mean you over-reacted and read into something that wasn't there, when the intent was quite simple to understand? Holy knee jerk. Get a grip.
"How very und/Democratic of you. You not only don't have the power to change them, you don't have that right to change them either."
ROFLMAO!!!! Oh you're a piece of work. I'm being undemocratic by pushing for the removal of a highly undemocratic process and installation of a far more democratic one? Now there's some brilliant logic if I've ever seen it. And I have no right to change them? Are you nuts? Of course I do. All of us do. All of us that care about the integrity of elections have a right to change processes that are undemocratic and disenfranchising. We have to do it in the right ways, and on the state level, but for you to make claim that I have no right to try is laughable and highly ignorant.
"What I find laughable is that now, when caucuses aren't going your way, they're suddenly "unfair" and "lack integrity". Yet if Hillary was winning we wouldn't be hearing a peep from you on this issue."
There you go being ignorantly assumptive again. Do you always think this little when you post and react in such a knee jerk manner? I mean, you're just parroting the same empty logic that others here have done, as if there ISN'T a bunch of things totally flawed and inadequate about the caucus process. Hey, here's a news flash for ya: It isn't US that are complaining about them because they aren't going our way, it is YOU and others who are defending them because they ARE going your way. You forsake all the truth in their inadequacy and defend disenfranchisement due to your own selfish reasons of them working in your favor. Now THAT'S pathetic. See, contrary to your highly ignorant assertion about my intent, I've only truly learned about the caucus process this year. From the MOMENT I learned about them in detail, my jaw literally dropped that these things are allowed to exist. I IMMEDIATELY recognized how flawed and nonsensical they are, and couldn't believe that we, as democrats, who are supposed to care about the process, could actually condone and sanction these things. And that's how I felt BEFORE Obama started being favored by them. So your assumption was completely off the mark. See, it doesn't matter who they favor or why someone does or doesn't want them. That would all be ad hominem bullshit. The FACT is, that in spite of any of that, on their own merits and for their own reasons, they are poor, inadequate, disenfranchising and undemocratic processes. That stands true no matter who does or doesn't like them or which candidate they do or don't favor. They have ALWAYS been undemocratic, unfair, and have lacked integrity, and your insinuation that I'm creating that due to their favoring Obama is quite naive. They are what they are, and what they are is simply not good enough.
"The hypocrisy is hilarious, however the whining has gotten pathetic."
There is no hypocrisy on my end. If anything, it is on your end. You act so smug and righteous and try and put forth that it is us that are whining and complaining solely because they favor Obama, when in reality it is YOU who is being disingenuous and selfish by resisting our concerns, solely because you like the fact that they favor Obama. That's the fucking fact. You and others are blatantly projecting when you turn it on us. The process is pathetic. That's a fact. You simply don't care, because here and now they are favoring YOUR candidate. How pathetic and selfish of you. But to turn that logic around on us is quite laughable, when it is quite easy to see just who the selfish ones are as it relates to liking or disliking the process. Any intelligent person would recognize the inherent flaws within the caucus process. It is obvious as hell, when someone defends them so passionately, that they do so out of selfishness due to their favoring the candidate they like. It's so transparent, and I laugh my ass off at your insinuation that it is us, rather than you, that are being closed minded and hypocritical. What a hoot!
"And the sense that you, from a non-caucus state, are entitled to meddle in the political structure of another state is ludicrous on the face of it."
Again, are you nuts? As an American, as someone who cares about the integrity of elections, I have EVERY right to voice my concerns about the caucus process. I have EVERY right to lobby and try and convince others on their state level to rid ourselves of these pathetic events. We ALL have such a right to do such things, and your assertion that we don't is one of the most ignorant and misguided things I've ever seen here. The caucus process disenfranchises voters, is lacking in integrity, and is undemocratic in a whole lot of ways. To say "tough! Nothing you can do! It's none of your business!" is just plain dumb on its face. It really is, and I'm amazed you could even utter such crap.
"Not surprising though, Hillary supporters are much like their candidate, authoritarian, autocratic, and think that they're entitled to do as they wish and have what they want."
Yes. How DARE we care about the election process. How dare we want processes that are fair, democratic, non disenfranchising, and that have integrity. I mean, HOW FUCKING DARE WE. Seriously, do you have any idea how monumentally stupid those comments sound? Get a grip honey, you are making yourself look quite silly.
Caucuses are horribly inadequate processes that all of us here should come together in getting rid of. We should all care about the integrity of elections regardless of candidates. We should care about having processes that are fair and not disenfranchising. We should all do what we can to lobby in the respective states for the complete removal of these amateur processes, and demand nothing less than a real election, where everyone has a chance to vote and can do so anonymously.
So yeah, you couldn't have possibly been more wrong and misguided in your reply. It was mind boggling in its lack of logic and critical thought. Hopefully, if you choose to reply again, you do so a bit more intelligently next time.
|