Quote:
Originally posted by: Mavdog
Quote:
Originally posted by: LRB
I don't see how any logical person not blinded by party loyalty could not see that what the democrats are doing is attempting to disenfranchise voters. An important right of every voters is to vote for the candidate of his or her choice. The dems are working hard to insure that thousands of voters won't be able to vote for the candidate of their choice by removing that candidate from the ballot. It doesn't surprise me that Mavdog supports this unethical and unjust practice because unlike KG I really didn't expect better of him. It wouldn't surprise me that Mavdog would support any thing the dems would do not matter how unethical it is. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if Mavdog would fail disapprove of any illegal actions by the dems as well.
Mavdog have you ever dissapproved of anything the democrats have done? I can't remember seeing a single instance if you have.
|
too funny. IMO in the dictionary under "partisan" it should state "LRB"...
|
Again I can name you serveral cases that I disagree with RNC actions. You need look no further than this thread to see criticism by me of the RNC. I quote: "While I'll agree that I don't think that it's the right nor ethical think for the RNC to get involved with helping the Nader get the signatures to get on the ballot"
Where have you criticized the DNC for unethical behavior? Blind loyalty and refusal to criticize you party of choice is why I refer to you as being a blin partisan. You could give me some examples of where you've posted about unethical behavior by the DNC and prove me wrong, but somehow I seriously doubt that will happen.
Quote:
|
A voter is not disenfranchised by the State requiring candidates for office to meet specific criteria to be placed on a ballot. If that were the case then voters have been disenfranchised since the very first election in our country. They haven't.
|
The state isn't requiring it here. Nader met the states requirements according to the interpretation of appointed and elected state officials who the law delegates the enforcement of the law to. The DNC disagrees with that interpretation and is sueing to overturn it. Why are they doing this. It's pretty clear that their reason is to eliminate the preferred choice of several thousand voters in an attempt to force them to vote for Kerry. I call this disenfranchisement.
Quote:
|
The voter can always write in a candidate, therefore no one is denied the right to "vote for the candidate of their choice".
|
My undestanding is that this is not an valid option because of the electorial college. You don't vote for the Presidential candidate, but for a group of Electorial College Representatives. I'm not even sure if it's possible to write in say 20 someodd names in Florida for Electorial college votes for Nader if the dems successfully get Nader removed there. Even if possible this puts an undue burden on the voter. The clear intent of the DNC is to limit voters choice of candidates ruled to be legitimate by the officals appointed to do so by the very laws you claim to uphold.
Quote:
|
The DNC is seeking the equitable application of the law, pure and simple. Nader should follow the rule of law in having his name placed on a ballot just as all other candidates are required to do. Why should Nader be treated any differently? He shouldn't. Nader should have the same rights as any other candidates and the same responsibility to meet the law's requirements as well.
|
Nader did follow the rules and got his name legally placed on the ballot. I agree that Nader shouldn't be treated any different, so like the other candidates who legally got their names on the ballot, the DNC shouldn't sue to have him removed. Would the DNC be suing to remove Pat Robertson if he got onto the ballot under the same circumstances as Nader? I cannot concieve of any credible argument to suggest that they would.
Quote:
|
I am baffled how anyone could argue that Nader should be treated differently than other candidates are treated.
|
Then why are you arguing that only Nader's name should be the subject of DNC lawsuits to remove him from the ballot? Very hypocritical of you Mavdog.