Will ex Hillary supporters really support a more conservative court?

[doeton]

i still pretty sure the vast majority of hillary supporters aren't little babies who won't vote for da man if hillary doesn't get the big ticket.

and so to answer the thread title.

Of course most mature thinking (read into that please) hillary supporters will absolutely not support a more conservative court.

 

[Care4all]

Well we are all relieved to know you support elections with only 1 real candidate. So much for "listening to the voters" and wanting to give them choice.

You keep ignoring the FACT that your candidate took his name off the ballot because he was going to lose Michigan, and he did not want the Clinton's down the road when the dnc rules committee met, the opportunity to get the votes that she rightfully deserved if the delegates from Michigan were instated as EVERYONE KNEW THEY WOULD BE, it was just a matter of 1/2 or full seating, at full percent.

Your candidate CHOSE to take his name OFF THE BALLOT, AND OFF OF THE WRITE IN VOTE TALLY strategically, and also used this while campaigning in Iowa, one of the States that are given special priviledge for some reason by the DNC and used it with Iowans to Pander for more of their votes, knowing that Hillary was going to take Michigan....

This election ONE POLL AFTER ANOTHER HAS BEEN WRONG on their predictions this year...majorly wrong, so much so that some studies of some of them have been done to figure out why all of these polsters are getting it ALL WRONG.

enough said.

Besides the fact that it is ILLEGAL to take votes legally cast and change them to favor a candidate that they never even voted for...it is voodoo, mind reading, RIDICULOUS and absolutely against Michigan Election Law and their certification of their vote that was filed on the record.

it was STEALING VOTES of the citizen voter that cast their votes in a legal primary election of their State.

Hillary Clinton should NOT BE PUNISHED for what Barak Obama chose to do for his own Political Advantage, that is unethical.

No Certified Election in History has take the Actual votes cast and CHANGED THEM IN TO SOMETHING ELSE THAT WOULD PERMANENTLY CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THIS NOMINATION ELECTION....

This is what was done and so help me G-d as my witness, (and those that know me, know of my beliefs, I would be sreaming bloody murder as I am now, if this had happened to Barak or any candidate on the Democratic or republican side or any side of the Aisle.

Yes, the actions of the DNC affected this primary nomination from the very beginning they messed up badly by announcing the sanctioning of the citizen's vote COMPLETELY instead of by 1/2 and Hillary suffered bigtime from it....

Along with the insiders of the DNC breaking their own Charter, their rules and michigan's election law to change the people's vote from Hillary and undecides in to pledged delegates for Obama in michigan so to make hillary's slim but actual chance that she had left, in to cutting her off completely....

all by breaking their own Primary rules and bylaws and by Breaking the Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States.....

BUT EVEN IF their actions had not snuffed Hillary's opportunity out, what they did was just absolutely unethical and wrong because it broke election law by taking certified votes of the citizen and changing it after certification.

 

[Steerpike]

doesn't matter...we will get a super majority in the Senate, which means a filibuster and veto, bullet proof Senate ....if mccain did win, he doesn't have the votes in the Senate to get any ultra Conservative thru the advice and consent of the SEnate....

Remember, though, that John Roberts got a fair number of Democrat votes (something like 80 votes in favor total). Many of the new Democrats that are winning Congressional seats are relatively conservative in terms of the party continuum.

 

[ReillyT]

You keep ignoring the FACT that your candidate took his name off the ballot because he was going to lose Michigan, and he did not want the Clinton's down the road when the dnc rules committee met, the opportunity to get the votes that she rightfully deserved if the delegates from Michigan were instated as EVERYONE KNEW THEY WOULD BE, it was just a matter of 1/2 or full seating, at full percent.

According to the DNC legal opinion, the DNC would not have been allowed to seat the full delegations from Florida and Michigan.

Whatever the generalized intent may have been to eventually seat some delegates (and this surely wasn't assuming the results of the primaries that have occurred), the decision that was made long before the primaries started was to strip the delegates from these states. The fairest solution probably would have been to stick to this initial decision. No delegates for either Clinton or Obama.

Besides the fact that it is ILLEGAL to take votes legally cast and change them to favor a candidate that they never even voted for...it is voodoo, mind reading, RIDICULOUS and absolutely against Michigan Election Law and their certification of their vote that was filed on the record.

it was STEALING VOTES of the citizen voter that cast their votes in a legal primary election of their State.

I am reasonably sure that the DNC did nothing illegal.

Hillary Clinton should NOT BE PUNISHED for what Barak Obama chose to do for his own Political Advantage, that is unethical.

Clinton should be neither punished nor rewarded. If the original decision of the DNC had been abided to, she would have gained no further votes from either Florida or Michigan. I disagree with what was done with respect to Michigan, but in the end it benefitted Clinton. Don't reinstate the votes and she would have gotten nothing.

Yes, the actions of the DNC affected this primary nomination from the very beginning they messed up badly by announcing the sanctioning of the citizen's vote COMPLETELY instead of by 1/2 and Hillary suffered bigtime from it....

The DNC did change the primary process from the beginning, although they did it fully within their authority. That is precisely the point. These were the rules established at the beginning.

BUT EVEN IF their actions had not snuffed Hillary's opportunity out, what they did was just absolutely unethical and wrong because it broke election law by taking certified votes of the citizen and changing it after certification.

I don't like how they dealt with Michigan, but they couldn't just change the rules set at the beginning in ways that benefitted Clinton greatly, so they split the baby, granting Clinton an additional advantage that it is very debatable she should ever have had. It probably would have been fairer to apply the original sanctions against the states, but political realities intervened, although in the end to Clinton's benefit.

* I have no idea why some of my script is bolded.

 

[ReillyT]

It isn't really that important that the Senate will be controlled by Democrats when it comes to USSC justices.

We already have several strongly conservative justices. All that need be done is to replace Stevens and Ginsburg (both of whom are quite old) with Kennedy replicas and the damage is done. The court swings sharply to the right again. Additionally, if McCain were to get two terms, we have no idea what the Senate will look like 4 or 6 years from now.

 

[Jeepers]

"You keep ignoring the FACT that your candidate took his name off the ballot because he was going to lose Michigan, and he did not want the Clinton's down the road when the dnc rules committee met, the opportunity to get the votes that she rightfully deserved if the delegates from Michigan were instated as EVERYONE KNEW THEY WOULD BE, it was just a matter of 1/2 or full seating, at full percent.

You are so full of crap care. By that reasoning, Dodd left his name on the ballot cause he thought he would win?... I've never seen you so unreasonable... what I really want is someone to answer the friggin question in the title of this thread... I actuallly would have put my money on O winining Michigan over Iowa..

 

[Jon]

You are so full of crap care. By that reasoning, Dodd left his name on the ballot cause he thought he would win?... I've never seen you so unreasonable... what I really want is someone to answer the friggin question in the title of this thread... I actuallly would have put my money on O winining Michigan over Iowa..

I already answered your question:

Yes, we would.

 

[Jeepers]

I already answered your question:

Yes, we would.

That is why hillary needs to join the private sector...she and her followers have no regard for party and country...

 

[Jeepers]

No Certified Election in History has take the Actual votes cast and CHANGED THEM IN TO SOMETHING ELSE THAT WOULD PERMANENTLY CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THIS NOMINATION ELECTION....

Your right care... nobody should have received votes.. just as ALL CANDIDATES AGREED...AGAIN.. The rules dont change cause hillary needs more votes.. it just makes her look like a hippocrate..

 

[Ravi]

I already answered your question:

Yes, we would.

Of course not, we're all a bunch of racists.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

It's not that the black electorate turned on Hillary, it's that the black electorate changed. Millions upon millions of new black voters were brought into this race to support Obama.

Are statistics really that hard to understand?

They were not "BROUGHT IN," they decided to participate, and rightly so, since they are CITIZENS of the US and have the RIGHT...

as opposed to all the "ILLEGALS" who also get to vote in some states!

 

[Jeepers]

Of course not, we're all a bunch of racists.

apparently thats what hill supporters have been pushing... Seriously.. are you voting of Mac there Ravi..

 

[Ravi]

apparently thats what hill supporters have been pushing... Seriously.. are you voting of Mac there Ravi..

No, I'd never vote for him. I might just not vote or write in Al Gore.

Time will tell. My vote doesn't count for anything, really, so I am free to follow my own conscience.

 

[Larkinn]

You keep ignoring the FACT that your candidate took his name off the ballot because he was going to lose Michigan, and he did not want the Clinton's down the road when the dnc rules committee met, the opportunity to get the votes that she rightfully deserved if the delegates from Michigan were instated as EVERYONE KNEW THEY WOULD BE, it was just a matter of 1/2 or full seating, at full percent.

This tired bullshit again?

Your asinine opinion is NOT a fact. You have NO IDEA why Obama took his name off of the Michigan ballot.

And no, not "everyone knew" it was just a matter of 1/2 or full seating. THats why, Michigan had an INCREDIBLY low turnout rate compared with similar states. Only 22% of the people who voted for Kerry went out to vote in the primary. In other similar states that number was 78%. Explain the difference Care. Or are you just going to run away and ignore this point and lie out of your ass again?

Your candidate CHOSE to take his name OFF THE BALLOT, AND OFF OF THE WRITE IN VOTE TALLY strategically, and also used this while campaigning in Iowa, one of the States that are given special priviledge for some reason by the DNC and used it with Iowans to Pander for more of their votes, knowing that Hillary was going to take Michigan....

Evidence that it was strategic please? And why the hell would he have his name not on the ballot, but allow write-ins? Thats retarded.

Besides the fact that it is ILLEGAL to take votes legally cast and change them to favor a candidate that they never even voted for...it is voodoo, mind reading, RIDICULOUS and absolutely against Michigan Election Law and their certification of their vote that was filed on the record.

Then sue, dumbass. And when you get your ass thrown out of court, I will be laughing at you. It is NOT ILLEGAL for the DNC to give delegates to whoever the hell it wants.

it was STEALING VOTES of the citizen voter that cast their votes in a legal primary election of their State.

Right the legal primary election with ONLY ONE REAL CANDIDATE. Which you seem to forget. You want free and fair elections, and you whine about voter disenfranchisement, but yet you accept an election where a HUGE amount of people didn't vote because they thought it wouldn't count AND there was only one real candidate?

Ludicrous.

Hillary Clinton should NOT BE PUNISHED for what Barak Obama chose to do for his own Political Advantage, that is unethical.

She wasn't punished. Hell, she was rewarded by giving her any delegates at all.

No Certified Election in History has take the Actual votes cast and CHANGED THEM IN TO SOMETHING ELSE THAT WOULD PERMANENTLY CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THIS NOMINATION ELECTION....

Thats nice.

This is what was done and so help me G-d as my witness, (and those that know me, know of my beliefs, I would be sreaming bloody murder as I am now, if this had happened to Barak or any candidate on the Democratic or republican side or any side of the Aisle.

Sure you would. Which is why you are busy claiming everyone who disagrees with you is sexist, right?

Yes, the actions of the DNC affected this primary nomination from the very beginning they messed up badly by announcing the sanctioning of the citizen's vote COMPLETELY instead of by 1/2 and Hillary suffered bigtime from it....

And Michigan and FL moved up their primaries AGAINST DNC RULES, which HILLARY BENEFITED FROM.

Along with the insiders of the DNC breaking their own Charter, their rules and michigan's election law to change the people's vote from Hillary and undecides in to pledged delegates for Obama in michigan so to make hillary's slim but actual chance that she had left, in to cutting her off completely....

Reilly posted the law which says your full of shit, and I've posted USSC caselaw which also says your full of shit. Do your research Care.

BUT EVEN IF their actions had not snuffed Hillary's opportunity out, what they did was just absolutely unethical and wrong because it broke election law by taking certified votes of the citizen and changing it after certification.

Learn election law before you talk about it being broken. Electors voting for different candidates has happened before.

 

[Jeepers]

12 more delagates to go...

 

[Jon]

They were not "BROUGHT IN," they decided to participate, and rightly so, since they are CITIZENS of the US and have the RIGHT...

Leave it to an Obamanite to take something that had no racial overtures and create one.

Your true colors show more and more, hypocrite.

That is why hillary needs to join the private sector...she and her followers have no regard for party and country...

She has no regard for party? She's considering running as VP just so Obama stands a chance at winning.

I, on the other hand, don't give a shit about the Democratic party. As I've said a million times, I'm a registered Independent. The day they create a "moderate" party, I'll register for that.

 

[Larkinn]

Leave it to an Obamanite to take something that had no racial overtures and create one.

Your true colors show more and more, hypocrite.



She has no regard for party? She's considering running as VP just so Obama stands a chance at winning.

I, on the other hand, don't give a shit about the Democratic party. As I've said a million times, I'm a registered Independent. The day they create a "moderate" party, I'll register for that.

LMFAO. Really? She is kindly and graciously considering running as VP just for Obamas and the parties sake? She has no interest in being the first woman vice president of the United States, at all?

God you are deluded.

 

[Jeepers]

She has no regard for party? She's considering running as VP just so Obama stands a chance at winning..

LOL .. yeah .. thats right... its not about personal ambition.. its all about the party... what a hoot...

I, on the other hand, don't give a shit about the Democratic party. As I've said a million times, I'm a registered Independent. The day they create a "moderate" party, I'll register for that.

Thats why you have troubles with the facts...I was always curious about that.. .

 

[Jon]

LMFAO. Really? She is kindly and graciously considering running as VP just for Obamas and the parties sake? She has no interest in being the first woman vice president of the United States, at all?

God you are deluded.

Obviously sensing sarcasm isn't your strong suit.

Jeepers, tell me again what facts I don't get. It's you, sir, that don't get the facts.

 

[Larkinn]

Obviously sensing sarcasm isn't your strong suit.

Jeepers, tell me again what facts I don't get. It's you, sir, that don't get the facts.

Sorry, I can't tell your tone over the internet. Its just a personal skill I lack.

And, really, from the other stupid shit you've said, I wouldn't be surprised if you were serious. Wishing Obama was assassinated is pretty much the most asinine thing ever.