2016 Postmortem

Karmadillo

(9,253 posts)

8. Nice when a generation comes along that isn't willing to eat the shit served to them.

Reply to One of the 99 (Original post)

Tue Apr 19, 2016, 04:39 PM

Apr 2016

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

187 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

NYS Election Laws have been in place for decades and no one complained before [View all] One of the 99 Apr 2016 OP

"Poutrage" is the appropriate term for this instance. IamMab Apr 2016 #1

Except that Governor Cuomo already sees this as a problem... Human101948 Apr 2016 #32

Those are NY values one can be proud of! snowy owl Apr 2016 #112

"Poutrage" Purple is the newest flavor from Ben and Jerry's--made from tart blueberries. Surya Gayatri Apr 2016 #47

I would have said "sour grapes" personally, but B&J uses multiple ingredients sometimes! nt IamMab Apr 2016 #50

They tried that recipe, but it was just a tad TOO bitter...LOL! Surya Gayatri Apr 2016 #53

Mock people who care about Voting Rights. Eric J in MN Apr 2016 #163

Your concern is selective, and therefore fraudulent. You only specifically care about Bernie voters IamMab Apr 2016 #168

I've been advocting Voting Rights since 2000. Eric J in MN Apr 2016 #171

No, not even close. If you'd honestly been working on voting rights this long, you'd know IamMab Apr 2016 #174

Voting rights include how primaries are conducted. Eric J in MN Apr 2016 #176

Poll taxes are illegal in any election conducted by a state. It has nothing to do with governing IamMab Apr 2016 #178

I didn't say that party-switching rules are the same as a poll tax Eric J in MN Apr 2016 #179

Then where's the disenfranchisement? IamMab Apr 2016 #180

The long freeze on party-switching stops people Eric J in MN Apr 2016 #181

No they're not. They can vote in any open primary. We've already been through this. IamMab Apr 2016 #183

I find that hard to believe, that no one complained. morningfog Apr 2016 #2

It was critical in 2013 One of the 99 Apr 2016 #5

And caucuses! apcalc Apr 2016 #26

oh dear the move to defraud the election process is not going well is it? nt msongs Apr 2016 #3

Defraud? How? One of the 99 Apr 2016 #14

Not true. basselope Apr 2016 #4

Yet he has never done a thing to change the law in his home state. One of the 99 Apr 2016 #7

Obviously, he has. basselope Apr 2016 #13

Other than one Op-ed from Schumer One of the 99 Apr 2016 #16

The op ed which discussed NY election law. basselope Apr 2016 #29

Go read it again. One of the 99 Apr 2016 #38

Yes, he does. basselope Apr 2016 #57

No he doesn't. One of the 99 Apr 2016 #60

Read it again, little one. basselope Apr 2016 #61

Read it several times. One of the 99 Apr 2016 #63

Try again. Read carefully. basselope Apr 2016 #65

Since you haven't posted the quote One of the 99 Apr 2016 #66

Read it again, little one. basselope Apr 2016 #70

Here's the ending... One of the 99 Apr 2016 #71

Try again. Read carefully. basselope Apr 2016 #72

Repeating the same lie over and over One of the 99 Apr 2016 #73

Except when it is. Try again. Read carefully. basselope Apr 2016 #74

At this point not sure if you are lying or just delusional. One of the 99 Apr 2016 #81

Neither. basselope Apr 2016 #83

Could have fooled me. One of the 99 Apr 2016 #84

Wrong. basselope Apr 2016 #106

Again, posting the same lie over and over again One of the 99 Apr 2016 #108

Yet, it is STILL not a lie. basselope Apr 2016 #110

Bet you think the world is flat too. One of the 99 Apr 2016 #113

No. basselope Apr 2016 #114

No you don't. One of the 99 Apr 2016 #115

Re-read the article. basselope Apr 2016 #116

You're the one that needs to re-read the article One of the 99 Apr 2016 #117

Re-read the article. basselope Apr 2016 #144

Post removed Post removed Apr 2016 #146

Re-read the article. basselope Apr 2016 #148

Post the quote. One of the 99 Apr 2016 #152

Re-read the article. basselope Apr 2016 #155

Post the quote. One of the 99 Apr 2016 #157

Re-read the article. basselope Apr 2016 #160

Post the quote. One of the 99 Apr 2016 #161

If you read the article, you would know how wrong you are. basselope Apr 2016 #162

Post the quote One of the 99 Apr 2016 #167

Read the article. basselope Apr 2016 #173

You could of course, post the relevant except... or simply continue your allegation. LanternWaste Apr 2016 #87

The silly person doesn't understand the article. basselope Apr 2016 #107

Don't engage. You can't have a sensible COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #76

But....Bernie is The One. nt Cali_Democrat Apr 2016 #6

Nice when a generation comes along that isn't willing to eat the shit served to them. Karmadillo Apr 2016 #8

Wow. You really have some anger issues. One of the 99 Apr 2016 #9

Not really, although anger about vote suppression in an alleged democracy is Karmadillo Apr 2016 #12

Suppression? One of the 99 Apr 2016 #17

Yeah, imagine that Depaysement Apr 2016 #27

How can they fight a broken system if they need to stay in their safe space all the time? snooper2 Apr 2016 #91

Wow, what an assinine response. Live and Learn Apr 2016 #129

Only with angry people. One of the 99 Apr 2016 #131

I have issues with asinine people. nt Live and Learn Apr 2016 #134

Must be hell to be you then. nt One of the 99 Apr 2016 #135

Only when I read Hillary supporter posts. nt Live and Learn Apr 2016 #136

I don't get angry when reading posts by people One of the 99 Apr 2016 #137

What makes you think I care what you do? nt Live and Learn Apr 2016 #138

Because you keep responding. nt One of the 99 Apr 2016 #139

Asinine assumption, in that case. nt Live and Learn Apr 2016 #140

I'll leave the assumptions to you, but you do keep responding. nt One of the 99 Apr 2016 #154

Right because you assume responses mean recs. Live and Learn Apr 2016 #156

Don't assume that. One of the 99 Apr 2016 #170

Well said Joe Shlabotnik Apr 2016 #111

But Saint Bernie wasn't running then. nt Jitter65 Apr 2016 #10

And no one will complain in '20 or '24 wyldwolf Apr 2016 #11

Both Sanders and Trump joined the parties and immeidately started whining question everything Apr 2016 #15

Well the Super D thing is dumb, but they both came late to the party. apnu Apr 2016 #20

Your premise is false ... Scuba Apr 2016 #18

Wow, you really had to digging on the internet to find those. One of the 99 Apr 2016 #21

One quick google search proved your premise is false. Scuba Apr 2016 #23

If my premise was false One of the 99 Apr 2016 #25

so when presented with evidence you still won't accept it dana_b Apr 2016 #149

Very thin evidence One of the 99 Apr 2016 #158

In fact, SCOTUS Decided Closed New York Primary was Constitutional in 1973 Stallion Apr 2016 #19

Wrong. This has been argued in court nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #22

Really? One of the 99 Apr 2016 #24

I am actually at Court nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #28

So you don't have links. One of the 99 Apr 2016 #37

As I said I WAS IN COURT nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #44

Talking about NY One of the 99 Apr 2016 #45

Oh talking about New York of course you are nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #49

Again you bring up one obscure case One of the 99 Apr 2016 #52

This is willful nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #56

Never said it was settled. One of the 99 Apr 2016 #58

Why do you think people generally speaking sue in civil court? nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #80

Is there a record of civil cases in NY? One of the 99 Apr 2016 #82

This message was self-deleted by its author nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #43

Jews were massacred in the millions during World War II Trajan Apr 2016 #30

Wow, when you have to resort to using the Holocaust One of the 99 Apr 2016 #39

That is a fallacious assertion Trajan Apr 2016 #40

No using the Holocaust is One of the 99 Apr 2016 #42

Maybe it wasn't an issue until people started finding their affiliation changed illegally? Matt_in_STL Apr 2016 #31

And that is the problem this time around. -none Apr 2016 #34

I worked for the NYC Board of Elections One of the 99 Apr 2016 #41

OMG. Duck! You made the mistake (to some posting COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #78

Yes, wonder how many already put you on "Ignore?" Facts are a killer around here. nt Jitter65 Apr 2016 #93

Had 3 do it yesterday. But today's another day. Maybe I can COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #97

You will never convince most people that they make mistakes. nt Jitter65 Apr 2016 #92

Still waiting to see all the stories about people whose registration COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #77

political revolution Cheese Sandwich Apr 2016 #33

Wrong. Plus, NY hasn't had a competitive primary that mattered for decades. -nt- chascarrillo Apr 2016 #35

They did for Mayor three years ago. One of the 99 Apr 2016 #36

Of course it counts but it makes the case for election reform all over again: Bluenorthwest Apr 2016 #86

You make a compelling case One of the 99 Apr 2016 #88

But they have been. The dismal low turnout and the rotten laws that cause it have been discussed Bluenorthwest Apr 2016 #94

Again the turnout argument One of the 99 Apr 2016 #99

Yeah, not since 2008 which is eons ago. LonePirate Apr 2016 #182

The Democratic Party never had to work so hard to keep an insurgent out. Avalux Apr 2016 #46

But NY has had a closed primary for decades. One of the 99 Apr 2016 #48

The group that sued in NY is a fake! IamMab Apr 2016 #51

Yeah, same for Wall Street shenanigans! Never been a problem before! KPN Apr 2016 #54

Guess you missed the insider trading trials One of the 99 Apr 2016 #55

You're not allowed to mention that... Blue_Tires Apr 2016 #59

it was an issue in 1972, and went all the way up to the Supreme Court JustinL Apr 2016 #62

And since then One of the 99 Apr 2016 #67

NYC Mayoral election of 1953 had 93% turnout. 2013 it was 24%...and that's not a problem to you? Bluenorthwest Apr 2016 #95

Sure it is One of the 99 Apr 2016 #102

From the NYC Campaign Finance Board--New York State Near Bottom in Voter Turnout Rankings Bluenorthwest Apr 2016 #118

Sorry but the turnout argument One of the 99 Apr 2016 #122

You don't know what you are talking about. snagglepuss Apr 2016 #64

And what does that have to do with my post. One of the 99 Apr 2016 #68

What was the scandal he was fired for? COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #79

What Democrat wants non-Democrats picking their nominees? oasis Apr 2016 #69

They are set up to protect the incumbent Denis 11 Apr 2016 #75

I'd say you just did not pay any attention. Big and ongoing issue for years. Bluenorthwest Apr 2016 #85

Sounds like you're the one not paying attention. One of the 99 Apr 2016 #89

The second link is to the NYC Elections Finance Board. What is your problem with them? Bluenorthwest Apr 2016 #90

My argument is that the voting laws in NYS One of the 99 Apr 2016 #101

Still waiting for you to explain why the NYC Elections Finance Board is not a 'major source' on Bluenorthwest Apr 2016 #96

It's not a major source One of the 99 Apr 2016 #98

It's an agency of the City of NY dedicated to fair and accessable elections..... Bluenorthwest Apr 2016 #121

Still not a major source One of the 99 Apr 2016 #123

What do you call a 'major source'? David Brock? I'm quoting NYC's own government agency. Bluenorthwest Apr 2016 #126

Sorry but you're making an irrelevant argument. One of the 99 Apr 2016 #127

It does not matter what sort of election, GE or primary or entirely local-NY has rotten Bluenorthwest Apr 2016 #143

I'm not trying to make low turnout sound good. One of the 99 Apr 2016 #145

as other have pointed out beedle Apr 2016 #100

Which is exactly my point. One of the 99 Apr 2016 #103

Lynching was never a "major problem" before either!? beedle Apr 2016 #104

Lynching?? Really??? One of the 99 Apr 2016 #105

Because a true leader has emerged who is making a difference in national politics. Good thing. snowy owl Apr 2016 #109

+1 (NT) Eric J in MN Apr 2016 #172

Bullshit. You haven't noticed. JackRiddler Apr 2016 #119

Can't notice what doesn't exist. nt One of the 99 Apr 2016 #120

You have been shown quotes and links from Agencies of NYC, elected officials and major media Bluenorthwest Apr 2016 #124

Sorry, the turnout agrument One of the 99 Apr 2016 #125

No, it's not. Crappy turnout results from poorly run elections with outdated regulations. Bluenorthwest Apr 2016 #128

Still an invalid argument. One of the 99 Apr 2016 #132

It's not invalid and no one is saying there is only one factor. NYC elections officials are aware of Bluenorthwest Apr 2016 #142

s/he doesn't want to. It doesn't fit his/her narrative dana_b Apr 2016 #150

More complaining, from 2014 and the NY Post, Clinton endorsing NY Post: Bluenorthwest Apr 2016 #130

Again you're making the turnout argument. One of the 99 Apr 2016 #133

Once again, you are presented with factual contradiction of the claim you make in the OP, source Bluenorthwest Apr 2016 #141

You're making a dishonest argument about turnout so there is no factual contradiction at all. One of the 99 Apr 2016 #153

My argument? It's the position of all voting advocacy groups in the City and State of NY. Bluenorthwest Apr 2016 #185

When was the last time NY was relevant in a primary? When did they lose a general? ViseGrip Apr 2016 #147

2008 when the NY presidential primary was held on February 5. LonePirate Apr 2016 #184

One difference about 2008... thesquanderer Apr 2016 #151

I think the primary in 2008 was earlier in the year. One of the 99 Apr 2016 #159

Correct, it was earlier in the year... thesquanderer Apr 2016 #164

It can be said about every injustice that people didn't complain until they complained. Eric J in MN Apr 2016 #165

Except this is not an injustice. nt One of the 99 Apr 2016 #166

NY state has the longest freeze on party-switching of all 50 states. Eric J in MN Apr 2016 #169

Bernie never got whipped in NYS before workinclasszero Apr 2016 #175

I never followed the results from every state in the primaries before Eric J in MN Apr 2016 #187

This is the first time I recall NY being a relevant primary state. That's why. Zen Democrat Apr 2016 #177

It is becoming more troublesome since Karma13612 Apr 2016 #186