What was McCain thinking?

ohio county wrote:Good. I agree we should let folks vote. Does that mean you oppose card check legislation?

I don't know what that is OC.

Is it some kind of gimmick to intimidate poor people from voting?

To most Americans, the term "card check" means nothing.

But to union bosses, this term potentially means billions of extra dollars collected in forced union dues, above and beyond the $7 billion in forced dues and "fees" that unions already report collecting each year on forms filed with the U.S. Labor Department.

Card checks empower union bosses to force a business's employees to accept a union as their exclusive bargaining agent solely through the acquisition of signed union authorization cards from employees in a particular bargaining unit. Since union officials themselves keep the signed cards until they obtain the required number, workers have no real privacy rights vis-à-vis Big Labor in this process. And under the watchful eyes of union organizers, workers may be intimidated into signing not just themselves, but all their nonunion fellow employees, over to union-boss control.

source

It was a legislative priority of the democratic majority in Congress. Maybe you ought to ease up on the feel-good XM and seek the truth.

I dont have XM I have Sirius.

And all the lefties on there are more hateful against Hillary than even Fox is.

I find myself listening to more music these days.

Those Obamabots are so arrogant they turn me off.

So I turn them off.

Don't you fear a backlash from the African-Americans if Obama wins the most popular votes and is denied the nomination?

Well like I said I dont think he will have the most votes.

And definitely not the most Democrats.

I think Hillary will wind up with the most "popular" votes and Obama will have more "pledged" delegates. Based in large part on the fact he did better in caucus states.

But that is just my prediction and my track record for predictions is not that good.

However he got the most delegates! I'm saying that your most loyal constituency - the black vote - might be in jeopardy if Obama has more pledged delegates and the superdelegates get buyer's remorse and pick Hillary over him. I understand you don't like the caucus format although if she were winning in the caucus states I'd bet you could find a way to appreciate the caucus...

shermangeneral wrote:And I certainly prefer a Primary to a caucus where there is too much intimidation factor involved.

But bottom line I think if parties are going to run Candidates then the Parties should choose those candidates.

(I also think the Parties should bear the expense of choosing them, but that's another argument for another day.)

You prefer a Primary election to a party caucus? Yet you think the Parties should pay for these Primary elections?

Elections are expensive. Where should political parties get the amounts of monies needed to "bear the expense" of Primary elections?

Well zig those are good questions and observations.

I would submit another question. (at the risk of hijacking the thread).

Why should taxpayers who consider themselves Independents or just non-participants have to fund the Primaries or caucus or conventions for the Democrats and Republicans?

When they are not members of those organizations?

Political party county and state caucauses and conventions are far, far less expensive than Primary elections.

I know that.

Maybe the parties would choose to go one of those routes, based on cost.

Or maybe their Party activists would work for free and donate their building/house etc for a polling place.

Go back to paper ballots and count them at the precinct level.

Lots of ways to do things if you want to.

Good suggestions, Sherm.

I'm not tryin' to beat up on you this mornin'- but just want to have some serious political dialogue 'afore you duck out on us and hit the road as you usually do on Sunday or Monday.

Wherever you're headed, have a safe trip.

tks zig. headed out shortly for Joisey with a load of liquor bottles...

Russia is going to continue down its path of increasing antagonism towards the West and the former Soviet republics regardless of what happens in the G8. But I agree that it is probably a bad idea to try to kick them out, even if we could do that.

tks zig. headed out shortly for Joisey with a load of liquor bottles...

Filled? Are you bootleggin' again, Sherm?

Good for you.

I've long suspected a liquor pipeline from Hoboken to Weston, as a plot from New Jersey elites to keep the West Virginia white man heavily sedated and voting Democratic. I guess I was wrong about the direction.

Seriously, dear Sherm, have a safe and enjoyable trip (if such can be had in a semi headed for New Jersey!)

ohio county wrote:However he got the most delegates! I'm saying that your most loyal constituency - the black vote - might be in jeopardy if Obama has more pledged delegates and the superdelegates get buyer's remorse and pick Hillary over him. I understand you don't like the caucus format although if she were winning in the caucus states I'd bet you could find a way to appreciate the caucus...

They might just be forgiving if the superdelegates switch to the wife of America's first black president.

Hillary Clinton has become John McCain's one and only asset. She is doomed (I think it's been mentioned more and once that a Clinton nomination would doom the black vote for the Dems) and now the only question is how many Democrats is she going to convince not to vote for Obama in November (perhaps unintentionally, perhaps not).

It just occurred to me that McCain and Clinton have something kinda in common. He has a war record and her husband has a whore record.

Really, though, God bless the Libertarans and Greens right now. Without them, who would we have to vote for? If I hold my nose and vote for McCain (as TerryRC has indicated he may) it's going to take some ridiculous statement or promise made by Obama. Maybe if Obama comes out for forced abortions or sha'ria or something like that....