Posted on 09/07/2007 8:46:32 AM PDT by PlainOleAmerican
Personally I think it’s time Fredheads Freep an online poll just to give the Paulbearers a taste of their own message.
Vote across party lines all you want. But hijacking a parties primary process is anything but ethical.
You: Voting in an election? Why, that's unconstituionamable!Won't someone think of the constimatution?!?!
Wet lunch? Where is anything in the first quote unconstitutional? How does wanting to hold party unity become unconstitutional? Where does it say in the constitution that political parties must allow non-party members to switch their affiliation for the sole purpose of influencing that party's vote? Where?
You’re making an ass of yourself sweetheart...
Making a mockery of the primary system by hijacking or “spamming” the “other parties” primary process is NOT constitutional or even ethical.
Keep trying to convince us that it is and you will only convince us more of what we already know. Ron Paul supporters know neither the constitutional election process or ethics.
So you’re saying we shouldn’t have parties or primaries at all, not a representative republic, but rather mob rule under a pure democracy free from party structures entirely?
I’m just pointing out that it’s the pot calling the kettle black in this instance.
And it doesn’t have to “support a constitutional process”. Anyway, the sites are ether one person one vote, in which case it’s whoever gets the most people on before it closes, or they allow more than one, in which case they really only want it for back patting purposes and it’s observationally worthless.
What are you looking for, McCain/Feingold for the Internet???
Unfortunately, decent Americans who play by the rules have been run over by those willing to make up the rules as needed for years now. Ron Paul supporters are just the newest breed of malicious malcontents.
Careful. I had a post removed earlier today on another thread because I called a RP wingnut a dumb a$$ (in response to telling me I'm uneducated). But then, maybe it was because I told him if he wanted to carry on the argument I'd make this the worse day he'd ever had. Nah, that can't be it.
They get awfully sensitive, these wingnuts.
You’re clueless at best.
50% of American voters don’t vote at all because they lost faith in the integrity of the process long ago.
Half of the 50% who do vote and been actively involved in further corrupting the intergrity of that process and now you want to play devils advocate in defense of such efforts?
What DU rock did you slither out from under?
Been kicked out of better places.... LMAO
Ass (as in jackass) which is the official symbol of the DNC and just a good a label for Ron Paul supporters.
Nowhere, and that's not the point. The point under discussion is PlainOleAmerican's screaming claim that, "NO TRUE 'CONSTITUTIONALIST' WOULD EVER USE SUCH TACTICS TO MANIPULATE A REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC!". Regardless of what PlainOleAmerican seems to think, people voting for a candidate they like in accordance with laws passed by their elected representatives is not a nefarious undermining of the process. It is the process. The fact that they may be voting for a candidate you guys don't personally like doesn't change that.
Deceptive at worst...
I guess I am too. I always thought Constimatution was the type of thing they offer at a site like this: Are you clean inside?.
You are as evasive as they come. They ARE NOT voting for a candidate they like. They are voting for a candidate because it insinuates their non-Republican, non-conservative beliefs into primary, trying to swing the vote of that primary to the candidate most objectionable to the majority of Republicans.
You can dissimulate all you want. We know what you’re doing, we know why you’re doing it. We know it’s shameful, and we will oppose and make it known to everyone. It’s disgusting.
Uh, a little elementary snooping might reveal where all this comes from....snort, snort.
“The fact that they may be voting for a candidate you guys don’t personally like doesn’t change that.”
You’re bordering on outright lying now...
This statement has NOTHING to do with the discussion. NOBODY is saying that people can’t “vote” for anyone they want (in the general election). We’re talking about corrupting the primary process of a political party.
I’m saying that it is unethical at best, and at odds with the constitutional process to manipulate the results of a political party nomination by switching parties solely for that purpose, without adopting the belief systems of that party.
It’s a SCAM, pure and simple.
Now, you either know that and choose to applaud it, or you are ignorant of it and refuse to become informed. No matter which it is, you are dangerous, as is anyone like you willing to make up the rules of the game as you go.
I would NOT endorse “spamming” the DNC either. So it has nothing to do with who the unethical behavior benefits. It’s unethical, and it scews the system, no matter who it benefits.
Get it? If not, we all know why...
Libertarians do NOT have the numbers to swing the “conservative” party in any direction. 2-3% at best...
So they need the help of liberal socialist Democrats to do it. That’s hijacking a Party in broad daylight. That’s what we object to.
131 posted on 09/07/2007 3:30:52 PM EDT by JTN (‘We achieve much more in peace than…unconstitutional, undeclared wars’ - Dr. Paul)
:)
Umm, no! Not all want to see RP as President. I'd like to see him find a good therapist.
Well, there may even be more...
So there is. What a surprise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.