AggieDave 6 #26 December 10, 2004 QuoteThe vast majority of Democrats had no voice in who ran. Actually, they do. If you understand the structure of political parties, then you know that the average democrate has a direct pull for who they want representing their party in elections, IF they get involved on the local level. Most people don't care enough to actually get involved. That's no ones fault besides those to lazy to care.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #27 December 10, 2004 QuoteThe vast majority of Democrats had no voice in who ran. Excuse me? This is the most untrue statement I have ever seen posted on SC. And trust me, there have been tons. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #28 December 10, 2004 No they don't with the primaries being held months ahead of some other states a lot of the canidates have droped out by the point that some large population centers get to vote. Thats why Iowa, New Hampshire and a few other states are the key to winning the nomination, they are so early in the primary season that its thought that who ever wins those states has the backing of the party.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #29 December 10, 2004 QuoteNo they don't Uh, yes they do, son. Every lefty that stepped into that booth had a choice. I don't recall a ballot for the dem primaries with just one name on it. There was always a choice. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #30 December 10, 2004 Quote . . . the most untrue . . . Can something be more or less untrue than something else? Something can be; true or false. That said, you're right, I should have reworded it knowing that you were in the room. To rephrase, "The vast majority of Democrats had little voice in who ran." This is not to be taken literally, because certainly there were vocal opponents, but rather that it simply did not matter because the momentum behind Kerry was simply too large once it had been "decided".quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #31 December 10, 2004 QuoteThat said, you're right, I should have reworded it That I'll agree on. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #32 December 10, 2004 QuoteTo rephrase, "The vast majority of Democrats had little voice in who ran." True, as did the vast majority of Repubs on who ran this election. Much less than the Dems. What's the point of this? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,175 #33 December 10, 2004 QuoteHis stance on Gun Rights, or the lack there of, basically NO gun rights is what scared the piss out of me. He commented that if someone wanted a gun they should join the Army... Gun rights is the first step towards the slippery slope. First step - that was taken before you were born. We are 3/4 of the way down the slope already.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #34 December 10, 2004 QuoteFirst step - that was taken before you were born. We are 3/4 of the way down the slope already. Well if you want to get historically accurate, the large steps in that direction were taken by Lincoln, BUT as per my generation (not yours) limiting gun rights as we know them will continue down the slope towards the eventual disregard for the entire Bill of Rights.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #35 December 10, 2004 Quote That said, you're right, I should have reworded it knowing that you were in the room. To rephrase, "The vast majority of Democrats had little voice in who ran." you'd be more accurate if you said "the majority of those who voted Democrat had little voice in who ran." None of the "Get out the Vote" campaigns were targeted before the Primaries... the party leadership didnt want that, they never do, it would mean the people chose who would run instead of the party puppet masters... yet another reason why the current two party system is fucked...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #36 December 10, 2004 QuoteWe appear to finally see a a dose of realism from liberals. I have heard politicians say that the reason Reagan was so effective was his ability to compromise. To only get 80% of what he wanted and that was ok. A lot of conservatives don't like the entire Repub platform (myself included). They don't believe that it is perfect, but it is better than whatever is second best. The main problem that I have always had with liberals is that they seem too fanatical about everything. There doesn't seem to be an acceptable definition of "success". Therefore, they will never have an acceptable level of performance/success from either party. Since they are more closely allied with the Dems, it will suck for them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #37 December 10, 2004 QuoteQuoteNo one buys into their policies, beliefs and political agendas anymore. 50 million Americans bought into it this year. Thats hardly no one. I've heard that a rather large number of Kerry's votes this year weren't necessarily -for- Kerry, but rather -against- Bust. I don't think that you can count those people as having 'bought into it'. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
