I did some googling, Rev, and can't find ANY reference to any of this in the 2004 election. Did you mean to reference the 2000 election? In fact, the only reference to 2004 and super delegates says that Kerry won the nomination OVER Dean who had the support of the S/D's

 

...I haven't spoke to anyone in my circle who likes Hillary for pres...I haven't heard anyone say they would vote for Obama...I have heard a few who liked Romney...alot who like what Paul says...Mccain is obviously folllowing the script so he is in the run...these puppets are put up by the media/corporate/war machine...it doesn't matter what they stand for, just as long as they follow the script...when they stray off course and don't follow the script, they will be JFK'd...vote all you want, just follow the script...Clinton, Bush...all the same...a few more million immigrants and the stage will be set...kinda' hard for a change or revolution when over half of the people are on a free ride and would not fight against the rite to work and benefits the US government offers them...we are screwed, done deal...keep on truckin'...

 

I thought you were from Canada? Or am I thinking of someone else?

 

Actually, T.L, both parties went to the FL Supreme Court at about the same time. Many other courts had been petitioned FIRST. And the FIRST court action was by the REPS!!

Gore first asked for a manual recount (which is provided for by election laws, and after a state mandated machine recount because of the close margin,) and the REPS filed the first COURT action to BLOCK the recounts.

But, I didn't really start this thread to rehash the 2000 election. I WILL if you want..... but if that had been my intention, I'd have titled it "BUSH stole the election" :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Yes, the Dems do have a dilemma. Hillary was all but “crowned” the candidate of the party. But seems she is so widely disliked, you now have a “new comer,” giving her the run for her life. Obama has taken on the persona of a rock star. He is packing 1000’s into arenas to hear him speak. He is a good speaker, charismatic, and smart. But does he have what it takes? I don’t know. ( I don’t know how he can do much worse.)
Right now, I am certain the Dem party chairmen are praying someone actually wins the nomination outright. Then they can avoid the MI and FL delegate seating decision, the super delegate problem and avoid infighting that will destroy the party. Basically handing McCain the Presidency by default.
…..
The Reublicans are praying McCain doesn’t “short out” and “fly off the handle,” showing his rumored famous temper. Showing everyone in America, maybe, just maybe, this guy has a screw loose.

 

RidgeRunner asked:

Glad to help ya out man..... here it is:

Ammendment 14 (Rights of Citizens) / Section 2

And, of course later ammendments gave the RIGHT to vote to Blacks and women... and lowered the voting age.

Yes, we have a "representative" form of government, and yes... the Executive officers are "technically" elected by electors.... but these electors are decided and apportioned according to the citizens "popular" vote. If, any citizen is "disenfranchised" the Constitution provides the penalty that the states "electors" will be reduced by the percentage represented by the LOSS of the citizens rights to vote.

This is why the super-delegate issue is so controversial. These "electors" are NOT bound to the representation of the VOTES of the people in their party, and are NOT "apportioned" by the numbers of any voters in any states.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that a good case could be made that they are, in fact, unconstitutional. They've only been around since 1968 (I think it was,) and to date no "challenge" has been brought to their existence or constitutionality (that I'm aware of.)

 

...western PA, born and raised...

 

I didn't say anything about "super delegates", now did I? :roll:

Finding it on Google took me all of 10 seconds. :roll:

 

Okay, Rev.... I guess I misunderstood what YOU meant, as I believe you misunderstood MY meaning in the original post.

I agree that the Dems reacted quite the same to the possible stolen election of 2004 as they did to the one of 2000. MY point though, was that this time WE are the ones CAUSING the disenfranchisement, of our OWN voters no less, and possibly could "select" our nominee against the will of the people.... just as Dubya was "selected." :wink:

 

It's clear you still don't get it.