A clear reason why we need closed Primaries

[progressive hunter]

Now you are just flailing because you got caught advocating silencing people.

people are free to talk or run for office all they want,,,

 

[martybegan]

people are free to talk or run for office all they want,,,

Under your regime unless they are or were a democrat or a republican.

 

[progressive hunter]

Under your regime unless they are or were a democrat or a republican.

no,, under the constitution of the united states of america,,
you know what that is dont you??

 

[martybegan]

no,, under the constitution of the united states of america,,
you know what that is dont you??

You are the one trying to ban party affiliation in elections, evidently you don't know anything.

What is worse you refuse to fess up about it.

 

[progressive hunter]

You are the one trying to ban party affiliation in elections, evidently you don't know anything.

What is worse you refuse to fess up about it.

they are free to affiliate with who ever they want,, but in federal politic the constitution doesnt allow private groups to take control of the country,,

just remove the D and R from all ballots and ban them from the halls of congress and whitehouse,,

they are there to represent the people that elected them not a private group,,

 

[martybegan]

they are free to affiliate with who ever they want,, but in federal politic the constitution doesnt allow private groups to take control of the country,,

just remove the D and R from all ballots and ban them from the halls of congress and whitehouse,,

they are there to represent the people that elected them not a private group,,

They don't. It's still the people elected to the positions, not the parties. Manchin shows that in the Senate.

What you are proposing violates the first amendment pure and simple.

 

[BackAgain]

They probably would have won anyways.

I dunno. If I cross-registered as a Dim just to vote in one of their primaries, you can be sure I’d seek to have their least likely to win candidate get the Dim nomination.

Not only is the OP spot on, in my estimation, I think the timing issue he brought up is an important one. How was the voter registered on the prior Election Day? Or at least a time limit between registrations.

 

[progressive hunter]

They don't. It's still the people elected to the positions, not the parties. Manchin shows that in the Senate.

What you are proposing violates the first amendment pure and simple.

then why do they need to have a D or R by their name???

they are free to call themselves anything they want,, just not have it put on government documents or ballots

whats wrong dont you think they can run on policy and need the help of the label??

FFS it caused a dead man and a vegetable to get elected in PA,,

 

[martybegan]

then why do they need to have a D or R by their name???

they are free to call themselves anything they want,, just not have it put on government documents or ballots

whats wrong dont you think they can run on policy and need the help of the label??

FFS it caused a dead man and a vegetable to get elected in PA,,

Freedom of association, a daughter of free speech.

That's the government banning affiliation, i.e. a first amendment violation.

 

[progressive hunter]

Freedom of association, a daughter of free speech.

That's the government banning affiliation, i.e. a first amendment violation.

sounds like you know your leftist ideology couldnt survive without your partys to me,,,

 

[martybegan]

sounds like you know your leftist ideology couldnt survive without your partys to me,,,

What leftist ideology?

Are you fucking retarded?

 

[progressive hunter]

What leftist ideology?

Are you fucking retarded?

not a retard,, just someone that doesnt need a party to do my thinking for me,,

 

[martybegan]

not a retard,, just someone that doesnt need a party to do my thinking for me,,

Who lets them do their thinking for them? It seems you are one of those idiot "I'm smarter than everyone because I vote for unwinning losers" types.

 

[progressive hunter]

Who lets them do their thinking for them? It seems you are one of those idiot "I'm smarter than everyone because I vote for unwinning losers" types.

thats the exact same thing dems say to me when I have this same discussion with them,,,

its like you get your talking points from the same place,,

 

[martybegan]

thats the exact same thing dems say to me when I have this same discussion with them,,,

its like you get your talking points from the same place,,

What talking points?

You are asking for something patently against the 1st amendment.

 

[progressive hunter]

What talking points?

You are asking for something patently against the 1st amendment.

no I'm not,,

are you for gay marriage??

 

[martybegan]

no I'm not,,

are you for gay marriage??

Only if passed via the State legislatures changing their laws, not via Obergfell. Obergfell was as bad as Roe, and should have only forced States to accept valid marriage licenses from other States as before, under full faith and credit.

 

[progressive hunter]

Only if passed via the State legislatures changing their laws, not via Obergfell. Obergfell was as bad as Roe, and should have only forced States to accept valid marriage licenses from other States as before, under full faith and credit.

so you oppose gay marriage,, how does that work with the first A that says freedom to associate??

the 1st A is for people not political partys,,

 

[martybegan]

so you oppose gay marriage,, how does that work with the first A that says freedom to associate??

the 1st A is for people not political partys,,

How can I oppose it if I am OK with it as long as it comes about via State legislatures changing their marriage laws to allow it? What I don't see is the Constitution forcing States to ISSUE Same Sex Marriage licenses, just forcing them to recognize them from other States that passed SSM legislatively.

It's called strict constructionism.

People ARE political parties.

 

[progressive hunter]

How can I oppose it if I am OK with it as long as it comes about via State legislatures changing their marriage laws to allow it? What I don't see is the Constitution forcing States to ISSUE Same Sex Marriage licenses, just forcing them to recognize them from other States that passed SSM legislatively.

It's called strict constructionism.

People ARE political parties.

so you think its OK as long as the government allows it,,

and you got the nerve to call me a fascist,,,

I guess that throws out you 1str amendment argument of freedom to associate,,