Obama is not disenfranchising them, they did that to themselves when they didn't commit an uprising as their legislatures voted to move the primaries.

Calling voters in Michigan and Florida "disenfranchised voters" is like calling a person under suspension for DUI a "disenfranchised driver." There are rules. If you break the rules, there are consequences.

There are rules set by the DNC that oversee the primary election process for the Democratic nominee. State parties that do not follow those rules are subject to sanction, up to and including stripping the state of its convention delegates. These rules were known in advance, and the consequences of breaking those rules was clearly communicated to the state parties. The fact is, in Florida, the decision to move the primary was made, in part, by a unanimous vote of the state Senate. That means 41 Democrats (READ: 41 highly influential members of Florida's Democratic party) voted for it. That kind of support doesn't happen when a Senator gets a buch of negative feedback from his constuituency. So if the Democratic voters of Florida thought this was such a bad idea, why was the vote in the state Senate unanimous?

There are rules for the candidates. The rules were agreed to BY ALL OF THE CANDIDATES. Those rules included not allowing yourself to be placed on the ballot in Michigan. Hillary knowingly broke that rule. The rules included not campaigning in either state. Hillary again knowingly broke that rule. She KNOWINGLY broke rules to which her campaign agreed upon. In my book, that's cheating. If you have to win the nomination through cheating, then perhaps you aren't the best choice of a nominee. Obama abided by the rules. Why, then, should he be penalized for living up to his agreements, and insisting that others do too?

When a person is elected President, they are, in effect, making an agreement with the American people to take certain actions. The candidates say every day "If you vote for me, I will do X, Y, and Z." If she is willing to break her agreements in these primary elections, why should I be led to think she would live up to her agreements with me, as a member of the American people? Who would I be smarter to vote for? The person that knowingly violated her agreement; that is, broke her word, or the person that kept his and then did everything he could to make sure the other parties did too?

What you suggest is like the NFL deciding at halftime to allow the team that is behind to hold, clip and tackle by the facemask. No. The rules are there for a reason and you can't change them at halftime because the team you want to win is getting beaten.

You can go drink and drive all you want. Just don't act surprised when they take your license away.

__________________
Tax & Spend > Borrow & Spend

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

Every feeling you've ever felt can be found in the works of Beethoven, Bruckner, Mahler, and Wagner.

No answer is possible to a vague question like that.

I already explained to you how he is not disenfranchising voters in Florida and Michigan. You completely ignored that explanation, so I don't think you're asking anything. You're telling people he is disenfranchising voters and not listening to the facts which contradict that.

I already explained how the Michigan courts, and the failure to find a fair revote blocked the revote in Michigan. You completely ignored that.

As for Florida, their only real proposal was a mail in re-vote, and that was simply not possible given how that would mean that many people would not get their re-vote thing in the mail due to changed addresses. There would also not be enough polling locations open for new voters. There would be fraud with the mail in re-vote. The Democrats in Florida disagreed amongst themselves and regardless of what the Governor said, the State Congress is still controlled by the Republicans and they were probably blocking any kind of re-vote.

You're telling a lie here. Show where I said that I am in favor of disenfranchising voters in florida and michigan to help Obama. You should ask people's opinions first before lying and telling them what their opinion is.

__________________
Formerly W.E.B. Du Bois (you can still call me "WEB")

Current Diplomacy thread
WEB Music Playlist
Protest Animal Cruelty

i have more of a problem with the states who only had 3% of their states votes registered because of the tornadoes that hit the same day as the primaries than fla and mich.I do believe obama would be setting on 25 states won,and more delegates and more popular vote. obama is getting blamed for not seating fla and mich because hillary is slamming it in with every speech she gives.i however don't think it's fair to split 50-50, it just isn't right to go against the rules at this stage of the game,if you let hillary break the rules once,how much do you want to bet she will do it again!

as i have posted before political office is an addiction ~ a vanity addiction. as mcCain said; "Washington is a Hollywood for ugly people".

important thing is to reconize it as an addiction

I'm sure that is true. In which case, allowing Hildebeast one minute as President would be like turning an alcoholic loose in a liquor store.

But now that you mention it, her pathetic plots to subvert pledged delegates, her scheme to win Florida and Michigan, then worry about getting them seated, her willingness to lie at the drop of a hat, to twist circumstances and mis-truths to her advantage are all the types of behavior you would see from a desperate junkie that is on the verge of losing her pusher.

You just provided me with a lightbulb moment! Thank you!

__________________
Tax & Spend > Borrow & Spend

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

Every feeling you've ever felt can be found in the works of Beethoven, Bruckner, Mahler, and Wagner.

still nothing as bad as what happened in fla in 2000