In article <186015c9-0c23-4351-a405-203deea959f0n@googlegroups.com>,
Rich <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:

They put out the word six months ago, no challenger of note would be permitted to run against Biden in the Democratic primary. Remember about
two years ago people saying even Harris might/could contest it? Never, ever going to happen. And people get "upset" when places like Russia or Eastern European countries block opponents.

Political parties are private organizations and their primaries are
private events so they can do whatever they want with regard to setting
rules about who gets to run, but if the parties are going to use
taxpayer resources to hold their primaries-- the entire election infrastructure, police, fire, medical resources on voting day, using
government buildings as polling places, etc.-- then they should be
required to meet a basic level of fairness and transparency and
adherence to basic democratic principles, which neither the Democrats
(with their superdelegates) nor the Republicans with their sudden "rule changes" currently meet.

If they want to keep their "private entity" status along with their "fix
is in" process, then they should be required to hold their own
primaries, on their own dime, to include renting every polling place,
paying every poll worker, reimbursing every city and county for the
police, fire, and EMT services needed to service the events-- just like
every other private entity has to do when it holds a large event.

Hell, a political party could dispense with the election altogether and
just appoint a candidate, as the Dems essentially did with Hillary in
2016 via "super delegates" which the FEC has no issue with, despite the
obvious unfairness of it.

The whole primary process is just a huge charade conducted to give the
party faithful the illusion that they have a say in the nomination. And
as such, the taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill for these
political parties' "democracy theater".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/4/24 1:22 AM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <186015c9-0c23-4351-a405-203deea959f0n@googlegroups.com>,
Rich <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:

They put out the word six months ago, no challenger of note would be
permitted to run against Biden in the Democratic primary. Remember about
two years ago people saying even Harris might/could contest it? Never, ever >> going to happen. And people get "upset" when places like Russia or Eastern >> European countries block opponents.

Political parties are private organizations and their primaries are
private events so they can do whatever they want with regard to setting
rules about who gets to run, but if the parties are going to use
taxpayer resources to hold their primaries-- the entire election infrastructure, police, fire, medical resources on voting day, using government buildings as polling places, etc.-- then they should be
required to meet a basic level of fairness and transparency and
adherence to basic democratic principles, which neither the Democrats
(with their superdelegates) nor the Republicans with their sudden "rule changes" currently meet.

Why don't you get some of the MAGA dipshits together and make this
happen? What's that? You belong to the party that can't legislate its
way out of a paper bag? Yeah, I guess that's accurate.

If they want to keep their "private entity" status along with their "fix
is in" process, then they should be required to hold their own
primaries, on their own dime, to include renting every polling place,
paying every poll worker, reimbursing every city and county for the
police, fire, and EMT services needed to service the events-- just like
every other private entity has to do when it holds a large event.

Hell, a political party could dispense with the election altogether and
just appoint a candidate, as the Dems essentially did with Hillary in
2016 via "super delegates" which the FEC has no issue with, despite the obvious unfairness of it.

The whole primary process is just a huge charade conducted to give the
party faithful the illusion that they have a say in the nomination. And
as such, the taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill for these
political parties' "democracy theater".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

rander3128@gmail.com wrote:

They put out the word six months ago, no challenger of note would be permitted to run against Biden in the Democratic primary. Remember
about two years ago people saying even Harris might/could contest it?

"But-but-but-but DEMOCRACY!!!"

--
Let's go Brandon!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <upqlgq$9los$6@dont-email.me>,
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:

rander3128@gmail.com wrote:

They put out the word six months ago, no challenger of note would be permitted to run against Biden in the Democratic primary. Remember
about two years ago people saying even Harris might/could contest it?

"But-but-but-but DEMOCRACY!!!"

Biden won a primary against other Democrats, which as the sitting
president and leader of the party it would be unheard of for him not to
win, and the Dem mouthpieces on CNN and Twitter are rolling around in
their own orgasmic fluids and acting like he just won the general
election in a landslide.

Buncha clowns.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/5/2024 2:44 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <upqlgq$9los$6@dont-email.me>,
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:

rander3128@gmail.com wrote:

They put out the word six months ago, no challenger of note would be
permitted to run against Biden in the Democratic primary. Remember
about two years ago people saying even Harris might/could contest it?

"But-but-but-but DEMOCRACY!!!"

Biden won a primary against other Democrats, which as the sitting
president and leader of the party it would be unheard of for him not to
win, and the Dem mouthpieces on CNN and Twitter are rolling around in
their own orgasmic fluids and acting like he just won the general
election in a landslide.

Buncha clowns.

What part of this sequence constitutes a mention-worthy surprise? E.g.,
did CNN's coverage exceed what it gave Trump's Iowa "win""?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <upqlgq$9los$6@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous
<weberm@polaris.net> wrote:

rander3128@gmail.com wrote:

They put out the word six months ago, no challenger of note would be permitted to run against Biden in the Democratic primary. Remember
about two years ago people saying even Harris might/could contest it?

Which "people" said that? Republicans? Harris was never going to
challenge Biden. The very idea is ridiculous.

"But-but-but-but DEMOCRACY!!!"

Really? Where?

This thing would mean more if Biden were in political trouble. He's
not. People are generally content, leaving no clear pathway to
challenge Biden's incumbency. Voters have to be really pissed off to
even consider dumping an incumbent. I don't see any indication of
this. They're probably just bored, and I don't blame them.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 23:22:29 -0800, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Political parties are private organizations and their primaries are
private events so they can do whatever they want with regard to setting
rules about who gets to run, but if the parties are going to use
taxpayer resources to hold their primaries-- the entire election >infrastructure, police, fire, medical resources on voting day, using >government buildings as polling places, etc.-- then they should be
required to meet a basic level of fairness and transparency and
adherence to basic democratic principles, which neither the Democrats
(with their superdelegates) nor the Republicans with their sudden "rule >changes" currently meet.

In Canada party conventions have a fixed number of delegates per
district (in some cases adjusted by number of paid up members in each
district to encourage membership sales) with the ONLY "superdelegates"
being elected members of parliament which are never more than 300 of
the total and usually less than half that.

And the amount they get from the feds is $ 0.00 though there is a
federal tax break where contributions up to $100 get a 75% tax credit
(note NOT a deduction!) with lesser percentages topping out at $3000.
Those amounts go to the contributors - not the party brass.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 11:44:42 -0800, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Biden won a primary against other Democrats, which as the sitting
president and leader of the party it would be unheard of for him not to
win, and the Dem mouthpieces on CNN and Twitter are rolling around in
their own orgasmic fluids and acting like he just won the general
election in a landslide.

In 1968 LBJ chose not to run again as he had been given polls
suggesting that he would LOSE primaries to RFK and others which of
course would be unheard of for a sitting president seeking
re-election.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

atropos@mac.com wrote:

Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:

rander3128@gmail.com wrote:

They put out the word six months ago, no challenger of note would be
permitted to run against Biden in the Democratic primary. Remember
about two years ago people saying even Harris might/could contest it?

"But-but-but-but DEMOCRACY!!!"

Biden won a primary against other Democrats, which as the sitting
president and leader of the party it would be unheard of for him not to
win, and the Dem mouthpieces on CNN and Twitter are rolling around in
their own orgasmic fluids and acting like he just won the general
election in a landslide.

Buncha clowns.

Senile Resident Joke Biden was the only person on the ballot.
Of course it was a "landslide".

--
Let's go Brandon!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <050220241550263537%nope@noway.com>, nope@noway.com wrote:

This thing would mean more if Biden were in political trouble. He's not.

TROLL-O-METER

5* 6* *7
4* *8
3* *9
2* *10
1* | *stuporous
0* -*- *catatonic
* |\ *comatose
* \ *clinical death
* \ *biological death
* _\/ *demonic apparition
* * *damned for all eternity

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <upta9i$scqv$7@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous
<weberm@polaris.net> wrote:

In article <050220241550263537%nope@noway.com>, nope@noway.com wrote:

This thing would mean more if Biden were in political trouble. He's not.

TROLL-O-METER

Hey, Ubi, my best advice to you is to go troll yourself.

To repeat, Biden is not in trouble. He will get his party's nomination
without effort, and he will win the general because his present
opposition is thin. Smarter and better candidates know to wait for
2028. Sorry if you find all of this too complicated.

And stop redirecting followups without notice, you stupid punk.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/5/24 1:44 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <upqlgq$9los$6@dont-email.me>,
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:

rander3128@gmail.com wrote:

They put out the word six months ago, no challenger of note would be
permitted to run against Biden in the Democratic primary. Remember
about two years ago people saying even Harris might/could contest it?

"But-but-but-but DEMOCRACY!!!"

Biden won a primary against other Democrats, which as the sitting
president and leader of the party it would be unheard of for him not to
win, and the Dem mouthpieces on CNN and Twitter are rolling around in
their own orgasmic fluids and acting like he just won the general
election in a landslide.

Buncha clowns.

But you and your sidekick are unable to talk about Trump due to lack of
balls?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)