The Democratic party should be ashamed of themselves

[bGIveNs33]

The republicans are just as corrupt as the democrats. Thats why you have to look at each situation separately. In this situation, the democrats are trying to break the law. I've never heard that thing about a legislature being able to appoint a new canidate, but i would have to doubt that. The only way a new canidate can be placed on the ballots is if the former canidate dies. But they are trying to do it anyway. That is wrong. You can't call the republicans wrong for trying to uphold the law. Because in this situation they are right. Now, take for example in Florida, Katherine Harris(secretary of state) is running for House of Representatives and a: resigned to late to do so.... and b: used state stationary to campaign. That's two things that are illegal. I would support democrats in a fight to keep her from running. Thats my tax dollar she is using. And this does effect me. I want to get Daschle off his post as soon as possible. We need to hold politicians accountable... no matter what their party line is.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

You see,when your a unionized goverment employee,you can basically be the laziest piece of trash and you will never be fired.

Guy I spoke to last night is a federal employee and he said, quote "No matter what happens you always have your job. They can't fire you."

That's pretty much the truth once you attain FTE (full time employee) status. You have to do something really, really bad in order to be dismissed....primarily because it's such a huge hassle for HR to crank out all the paperwork justifying your dismissal.

You can be furloughed though (essentially put out to pasture temporarily without pay) in the event the retarded children comprising our federal government can't get the budget figured out.....resulting in work stoppage for fed employees. That's always a hoot.

 

[Corn]

No one can be added to the ballot after the fact without it being approved by someone in the legislative branch.

Please provide evidence that NJ law allows someone in the "legislative branch" to add a candidate "after the fact", or more specifically within 51 days of the election.

The Republicans are challenging it because they want to win the race just like the Dems.

Of course the Republicans want to win, but they are not party who is trying to circumvent the law in this case. Its the Democrats that are appealing (ultimately) to the NJ Supreme Court to allow them to break election law, not the Republicans.

Political parties and their blind, zealous supporters are one of the greatest hindrances to the democratic process.

The "democratic process" is being assailed alright, but not by "zealous supporters", but by a political party that believes election law does not apply to them. Political affiliation, whether zealous or causal, is a benefit to the democratic process, not the other way around--because, ultimately, it leeds to discussion, debate, and people voicing their opinion at the polls.

It should be noted that _I_ am a moderate republican these days, and people like you make me sick.

Yeah, and I'm Snow White.

I also don't see why you feel that the people of NJ should be robbed of their power to choose.

What the hell are you talking about? Didn't they already choose their democratic candidate? Why yes of course they did. In addition, every citizen in NJ has the right to write in their choices as well, and no one can stop them from doing that.

Maybe you don't "get it" because you aren't in NJ and it won't much affect you, but I'm here and I'm not happy about it......

What are you not "happy" about, I thought you were a republican after all (this little fiasco shouldn't affect who your choice would be, right)....unless of course you're a republican in word and not deed.......

 

[Jzero]

We need to hold politicians accountable... no matter what their party line is.

Well, there's at least one thing we agree on

I guess the way I see it is that both Forrester and Torricelli suck. I don't want to vote for either of them. If we leave Torch on the ballot, then that is a waste because no one is going to vote for a clown who has already lost the public's trust. In that case, my only choice is to vote for Forrester, whom I don't support, or throw my vote away on a write-in that will never work. Who would I write in? Maybe Jim McGreedy because if we could get him out of the state house....or DeForest Soaries? But is everyone else going to write in Buster? I doubt it.
I'm faced with a no-win situation.

Let's say they convince the supreme court to over-ride the arbitrary deadline and allow Frank Lautenberg to be on the ballot. At least I have a viable alternative to Forrester, and a lawmaker who has a half-decent track record to weigh against the opposition.

As a voter, I couldn't care less about arbitrary deadlines; I want the best person possible to hold that seat regardless of their party affiliation. Leaving Torricelli on the ballot is not in the people's best interests, however it IS in the republican's best interests because it guarantees them the seat.

I agree with what you are saying, but I will challenge anyone who insists on using this situation as an excuse to push their partisan zeal, which is how this thread was started.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: Corn

No one can be added to the ballot after the fact without it being approved by someone in the legislative branch.

Please provide evidence that NJ law allows someone in the "legislative branch" to add a candidate "after the fact", or more specifically within 51 days of the election.

Sorry, I meant to say the judicial branch, i.e. the supreme court which is exactly what they're doing.

Of course the Republicans want to win, but they are not party who is trying to circumvent the law in this case. Its the Democrats that are appealing (ultimately) to the NJ Supreme Court to allow them to break election law, not the Republicans.

I don't see what is so dishonorable about asking the supreme court to decide something. Isn't that what it's there for?

The "democratic process" is being assailed alright, but not by "zealous supporters", but by a political party that believes election law does not apply to them.

That is BOTH political parties. That's my beef with people like you because, THIS particular situation involves democrats, but if the roles were reversed, the SAME thing would happen. Everybody's sh!t stinks.

Political affiliation, whether zealous or causal, is a benefit to the democratic process, not the other way around--because, ultimately, it leeds to discussion, debate, and people voicing their opinion at the polls.

Maybe in a perfect world. In a real world people just follow what party leaders tell them to do. Go look up the other thread on this topic. I've sat in on sessions of congress and I've seen the sh!t they do.

It should be noted that _I_ am a moderate republican these days, and people like you make me sick.

Yeah, and I'm Snow White.

Smart comeback. I'll be sure to write that one down.

I also don't see why you feel that the people of NJ should be robbed of their power to choose.

What the hell are you talking about? Didn't they already choose their democratic candidate? Why yes of course they did. In addition, every citizen in NJ has the right to write in their choices as well, and no one can stop them from doing that.

See my post above about why I feel a write-in is a waste of a vote. As for people choosing their democratic candidate, woopdeedoo. It was a primary, and it was before the sh!t really hit the fans for Torricelli. There's no doubt that he wouldn't have gotten the nomination NOW.

Maybe you don't "get it" because you aren't in NJ and it won't much affect you, but I'm here and I'm not happy about it......

What are you not "happy" about, I thought you were a republican after all (this little fiasco shouldn't affect who your choice would be, right)....unless of course you're a republican in word and not deed.......

Recall my criticism of morons who blindly follow party lines. I will NOT vote for Doug Forrester just because he's a republican. That's exactly what the problem is here. He sucks. See my post above. If Torricelli gets yanked, then I have more choice than if he stays, and that's what it's all about.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Jumpem

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
and the republicans are forever fawning over total jackasses like rush limbaugh and ann coulter it all evens out.

Rush Limbaugh is brilliant(although not always conservative enough for my taste) and the country would be much better off if some of what he suggests was put into practice. You sir are an idiot.

Thats whats wrong with america, people who follow others with blind faith and a healthy dose of ignorance. Its no wonder limbaughites are called ditto heads, thinking for themselves is quite dangerous and frowned upon. His followers are people that think name calling and other childish behavior are valid forms of arguement. The man has no concept of fallacy or simple intellectual honesty, and sadly neither do you.

when you have time between your heavy doses of righteous indignation radio, go look up fallacies and read about it some time. it might help you.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
They're trying not to get too big of an advantage over a President that can't talk.

Moonbeam, I am sorry, but this is one of your worst comebacks, ever!

 

[Corn]

Let's say they convince the supreme court to over-ride the arbitrary deadline and allow Frank Lautenberg to be on the ballot.

I love the terms people use to justify breaking the law: In this case its the term "arbitrary deadline".

Evidently you don't have much of a clue how complicated a process that an election is. Why, exactly, is a 51 day requirement deemed "arbitrary" to you?

Perhaps you don't understand that it takes a certain amount of time to print off ballots, and to ensure the quality of those ballots with regard to the mechanism to register the votes listed on those ballots.

Also I suppose you don't understand the concept of voting in absentia, and that in order to register those votes within a reasonable timeline--especially for those who serve in the military, that ballots must be printed and finalized well enough in advance so as to give the absentee voter a chance to recieve their ballot, fill out their ballot, and send that ballot in so that their vote is registered. So, please, explain to me what kind of timeline would you deem to be more appropriate and not "arbitrary" for the name on the ballots to be finalized, since you are obviously well versed in election logistics.

I agree with what you are saying, but I will challenge anyone who insists on using this situation as an excuse to push their partisan zeal, which is how this thread was started.

No, this thread was started because a political party determined that election laws do not apply to them. It's that attitude that led to this thread.

As a voter, I couldn't care less about arbitrary deadlines; I want the best person possible to hold that seat regardless of their party affiliation.

Gee, perhaps that's why primary elections are heald prior to general elections, eh? If Lautenberg were such a superior candidate, why is he not on the ballot? ....and what is stopping him from beginning a write-in campaign? Oh, I see if "your" ideal candidate isn't included on the ballot, then the whole state is robbed of their right to vote?

 

[glenn1]

Let's say they convince the supreme court to over-ride the arbitrary deadline and allow Frank Lautenberg to be on the ballot. At least I have a viable alternative to Forrester, and a lawmaker who has a half-decent track record to weigh against the opposition.

Perhaps we can send Jimmy Carter there to the Banana Republic of New Jersey to review and certify their election, since they're about ready to flush their election laws down the sh!tter anyway.

I propose this fair solution... the Democrats get their way to put whomever they want on the ballot. In return, none of the campaign finance, media usage, and fundraising rules apply to Doug Forrester (the Republican candidate). Either you have and enforce ALL the election laws, or you enforce none of them. So how's that sound to you, New Jersey democrats?

 

[Corn]

If Torricelli gets yanked, then I have more choice than if he stays, and that's what it's all about.

What do you mean when you state you have "more choice"? Do you mean that "your" candidate has a better chance of winning?

You use a dishonest argument about "choice", when in fact, the argument isn't choice at all, its the outcome of the election that only concerns you. Why is it that I'm not suprised one bit?

 

[Chubs]

Originally posted by: Jumpem

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
and the republicans are forever fawning over total jackasses like rush limbaugh and ann coulter it all evens out.

Rush Limbaugh is brilliant(although not always conservative enough for my taste) and the country would be much better off if some of what he suggests was put into practice. You sir are an idiot.

Rush Limbaugh is brilliant? You should ask them to turn up the voltage on your next "treatment".

 

[Corn]

Recall my criticism of morons who blindly follow party lines.

You know Jzero, if your argument weren't so hypocritical, your opinions might be considered to have merit: Your argument for "choice" (actually, not choice, but outcome) is rooted in the fact that "your" candidate might realize victory by virtue of a vote taken by individuals simply because of party affiliation.

One might ask why you are afraid to let the people vote for whom they wish, instead of ramming a candidate, for whom they did not previously consider, down their throats.

It's interesting that you would decide, yourself, the will of the people, inspite of their decision to nominate their choice in the primary elections.

I also find it interesting that you would decide, yourself, to negate the votes of people voting in absentia, who may have already cast their vote for whom they wished. Your version of "choice" in the democratic process terrifies me, especially given the means you wish to use to impose your choice on the people of NJ. They already made their choice and you want to take it away from them. Oh, the bitter irony, LOL.

Hell, why bother with an election anyway, since its "your" choice that matters the most anyway, NJ should just appoint who you believe best suites your needs, because, well, you know, some people might not agree with who it is you would vote for, thus negating your vote.

 

[ErmanC]

Originally posted by: jorken
whole lotta democrats in here...

Unfortunately, we got better things to do than reply to this babble...

 

[Moonbeam]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
They're trying not to get too big of an advantage over a President that can't talk.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote
-----------------------
Originally posted by CPA
Moonbeam, I am sorry, but this is one of your worst comebacks, ever!
-----------------------------------

That it merited comment by you, CPA, is sufficient gratification for me.

 

[Jzero]

I love the terms people use to justify breaking the law: In this case its the term "arbitrary deadline".

You are correct, the "arbitrary deadline" was created for very good reason. However it IS arbitrary in that it was not spoken into existence by God, and if there is a good solid reason to push it, then let's push it.

Gee, perhaps that's why primary elections are heald prior to general elections, eh?

Oh I forgot that the NJs dems have a crystal ball and knew that the allegations against Toricelli were going to be proven true back when they had the primary. Silly me.

If Lautenberg were such a superior candidate, why is he not on the ballot? ....and what is stopping him from beginning a write-in campaign? Oh, I see if "your" ideal candidate isn't included on the ballot, then the whole state is robbed of their right to vote?

Actually, Lautenberg is HARDLY an ideal candidate. He wasn't in the primary because he retired his seat. He was fingered merely because he was willing. From what I read in the NYT today, no one else wanted to step in, so he agreed to.

Do you know anything about this issue other than what you've read in this thread?

What do you mean when you state you have "more choice"? Do you mean that "your" candidate has a better chance of winning?

Obviously not since I've already pointed out that I don't have any allegiance to one candidate or another. I didn't like Toricelli, I don't like Forrester.

You use a dishonest argument about "choice", when in fact, the argument isn't choice at all, its the outcome of the election that only concerns you. Why is it that I'm not suprised one bit?

The outcome of the elections is the result of choice. Keep grasping at straws, and don't forget to restate this vapid argument in a subsequent post.

Look again at the options:
1. Toricelli stays on the ballot. Write in vote is a waste, Toricelli is a waste. Forrester might as well run uncontested.
2. Toricelli gets replaced. Write in is STILL a waste, but at least we can choose between Forrester or someone else. I don't care if it's Lautenberg or Mickey Mouse. I want the people of NJ to be able to choose between at least two people. For some reason you seem to support pitting Forrester against a lame duck. If Forrester is the better man, he'll win, even if he actually has to compete with someone.

Originally posted by: Corn

Recall my criticism of morons who blindly follow party lines.

You know Jzero, if your argument weren't so hypocritical, your opinions might be considered to have merit: Your argument for "choice" (actually, not choice, but outcome) is rooted in the fact that "your" candidate might realize victory by virtue of a vote taken by individuals simply because of party affiliation.

I guess since you repeat yourself, I must:
I have no candidate. I didn't like either of them. I want a choice between 2 people.
Even if I were a supporter of Doug Forrester, I WOULD STILL WANT SOMEONE ELSE ON THE BALLOT. I don't want any candidate to win just because the opposition was shown to be corrupt and not fit for serving. I want whatever candidate that wins to do so based on their platform.

One might ask why you are afraid to let the people vote for whom they wish, instead of ramming a candidate, for whom they did not previously consider, down their throats.

What are you talking about? Who is ramming a candidate down anyone's throat? For those who were going to vote for Forrester, they can still vote for Forrester. For those who were going to vote for Torricelli, then they don't have to vote for Forrester by default because Torricelli is corrupt.
I'd say forcing the people to choose between a legitimate candidate and a PROVEN CROOK is ramming a candidate down people's throats.

It's interesting that you would decide, yourself, the will of the people, inspite of their decision to nominate their choice in the primary elections.

I think you've lost it because I have no idea what you're talking about. Seems to me that you're nervous that unless he runs unopposed, Forrester might lose. If you have any confidence in him, you'd be saying "Bring it on! We'll win anyway!" What are you so afraid of?

I also find it interesting that you would decide, yourself, to negate the votes of people voting in absentia, who may have already cast their vote for whom they wished.

Who the hell said anything about that? People who have already submitted absentee ballots will OBVIOUSLY have to be given the opportunity to recast their vote. Do you have to be such a simpleton? We have the infrastructure to make changes in the 21st century.

Your version of "choice" in the democratic process terrifies me, especially given the means you wish to use to impose your choice on the people of NJ. They already made their choice and you want to take it away from them. Oh, the bitter irony, LOL.

Once again, you recall that Torricelli was nominated BEFORE he was admonished and lost all of his credibility. Prior to that, he was losing credibility but still had enough to get the nod. NOW he has no credibility and he is a crook, and no one will vote for him. How is allowing people to choose between two respectable politicians instead of forcing them to choose between a respectable man and a crook "imposing my choice on the people of NJ?" You have a sick sense of logic.

Hell, why bother with an election anyway, since its "your" choice that matters the most anyway, NJ should just appoint who you believe best suites your needs, because, well, you know, some people might not agree with who it is you would vote for, thus negating your vote.

Now you've lost it. I will decline to reply to any similarly misguided ramblings from you. If you can poop out something that doesn't imply that I'm some sort of megalomaniac for NOT WANTING TO FORCE THE STATE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN A CROOK AND SOMEONE ELSE, then maybe I'll entertain this debate further.

 

[fluxquantum]

We need to hold politicians accountable... no matter what their party line is.

 

[Moonbeam]

I believe the governor of the state, a Democrat, can simply appoint a Senator in this case, without an election, legally, and that senator would sit till the next, not this, election. I see no reason the Democrats should even hold the election and give the Republicans a fighting chance. They stole the Presidency, that's enough crime for a lifetime. As every informed person knows, Gore was the winner in Florida. All Republican legal efforts including those that ultimately proved successful, were aimed at not counting the ballots. Of all the ways there were to count the ballots Gore won the one where the actual knowable majority state wide vote was counted. In a democratic election, that's the only one that matters.

 

[Michael]

Jzero,

There are more than just the Democrat candidate and the Republican candidates on the ballot. There is plenty of choice if you don't like either of the candidates from the main parties.

The allegations of corruption were well known before the Primary and the Democtratic Party nominated Torricelli withh full knowledge of the allegations. Almsot all the media reports on this strongly supported the fact that there was something to the allegations.

Even after the Senate Committee admonished Torricelli, he was still leading in the polls. He fell behind due to the campaign and new information that the only reason criminal charges were not brought against him was because the prosecutor felt that he would have a tough time in court because the witness wasn't great - too much he said/she said involved - not because they didn't think that Torricelli was guily.

Torricelli is a coward that can't face defeat and couldn't make the right decision before the deadline (or before the Primary result). The Democrats chose him and ran a campaign with him. Now that they're losing they want to change?

I agree that the 51 days number could be a different number, but the law would have to be changed to do so. As was shown by the Supreme Court decision on the Florida recounts and by precidents and law, you can't change the rules in the middle of an election. So if NJ wants to change their law and make the deadline closer to the election, their representatives can do so after this election.

I also want to point out that registered Democrats were not given the choice of what candidate they wanted to represent them - the "new" one was chosen by fiat by the higher-ups in the party. That alone should disqualify him from appearing on the ballot.

Did you vote in one of the primaries to make your views on who should be running known and counted?

Michael

 

[Michael]

Moonbeam,

Funny, just about 100% of the media recounts that were done well after the election showed that Bush would have won. I think that you're not "informed". Maybe "malformed".

I do agree that the law allows the NJ Governor to appoint a Senator if Torricelli resigns. I think that, if he did, the Republicans would pick up so many seats outside of NJ that it would be the most counter-productive thing that the Democrats could possibly do.

Michael

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: Michael
Jzero,

There are more than just the Democrat candidate and the Republican candidates on the ballot. There is plenty of choice if you don't like either of the candidates from the main parties.

Good point. Unfortunately, I doubt anyone will have the clout to make it, but we shall see.

The allegations of corruption were well known before the Primary and the Democtratic Party nominated Torricelli withh full knowledge of the allegations. Almsot all the media reports on this strongly supported the fact that there was something to the allegations.

The media loves to claim there is something to allegations. Scandal sells.

Torricelli is a coward that can't face defeat and couldn't make the right decision before the deadline (or before the Primary result). The Democrats chose him and ran a campaign with him. Now that they're losing they want to change?

You're right about Torricelli, and naturally it is sour grapes from the Democrat perspective. Unfortunately, my point that I'd rather be able to choose between a republican and a democrat coincides with this, but I don't have any sympathy for Torricelli OR the dems.

I agree that the 51 days number could be a different number, but the law would have to be changed to do so. As was shown by the Supreme Court decision on the Florida recounts and by precidents and law, you can't change the rules in the middle of an election. So if NJ wants to change their law and make the deadline closer to the election, their representatives can do so after this election.

I trust the supreme court to make the best decision. They should know the ins and outs of the situation better than I. If you can't change the rules, you can't change the rules. Torricelli stays on the ballot and may the best man win.

I also want to point out that registered Democrats were not given the choice of what candidate they wanted to represent them - the "new" one was chosen by fiat by the higher-ups in the party. That alone should disqualify him from appearing on the ballot.

Very good point. Perhaps that's what Corn was trying to say about forcing a candidate on the people in his posts above?
That is a very good reason to leave Torricelli on the ballot no matter what.

Did you vote in one of the primaries to make your views on who should be running known and counted?

I'm not registered with either party, so I didn't participate in the primaries. It's something I should do, but up until the last year or so, I mostly liberal-leaning but in my "old age" I've grown more conservative and agree more and more with the republican ideals. I was never sure which party to support.

 

[Corn]

However it IS arbitrary in that it was not spoken into existence by God, and if there is a good solid reason to push it, then let's push it.

What is that "good solid" reason again? Oh yeah, it's the fact that he's gonna lose big time.

Oh I forgot that the NJs dems have a crystal ball and knew that the allegations against Toricelli were going to be proven true back when they had the primary. Silly me.

Well, perhaps the good NJ dems should have thrown their support to someone who was not under a criminal and ethical investigation then, eh?

I WOULD STILL WANT SOMEONE ELSE ON THE BALLOT.

Um, someone else is on the ballot, the simple fact is he's gonna lose, and since he's gonna lose, party zealouts (such as yourself, even though you keep whining the contrary) are simply attempting to break the law in order to place a candidate of their choosing (not chosen by the people of NJ) whom they believe has a better chance to win.

I want whatever candidate that wins to do so based on their platform.

Pray tell, what "platform" for which candidate do you support? Since your first choice retired his seat and hasn't campaigned, please explain what issues he has voiced his concerns about that have given you reason to support his vote............This outta be interesting, but if your honest you'll actually admit the sole reason is that he's a democrat that does not have an objectionable record as far as his ethics are concerned--thus a means for a supposed easy victory for the democrats in a state that historically supports democrats.

Who is ramming a candidate down anyone's throat?

Well, who is going to chose which democratic candidate will appear on the ballot in 30 days? The people? Is there going to be another primary election prior to the general election to establish a democratic candidate for senate, or is the candidate going to be arbitraily chosen by the party elite, and not by the people?

I'd say forcing the people to choose between a legitimate candidate and a PROVEN CROOK is ramming a candidate down people's throats.

Who is forcing anyone to vote for the Torch? Please provide me with a certain amount of evidence that people will not be free to vote for whomever they wish as a write-in candidate?

Oh, that's right, you believe that write-in votes are worthless--precisely because you believe that since other people might not vote for your candidate and nothing more.

If we leave Torch on the ballot, then that is a waste because no one is going to vote for a clown who has already lost the public's trust. In that case, my only choice is to vote for Forrester, whom I don't support, or throw my vote away on a write-in that will never work. Who would I write in? Maybe Jim McGreedy because if we could get him out of the state house....or DeForest Soaries? But is everyone else going to write in Buster? I doubt it.
I'm faced with a no-win situation.

That very quote there answers my charge against you--you believe that the people cannot be trusted to vote their conscience, that they must be led to the candidate that you believe best suit your party affiliations or general sensibilities.

The fact is that the Torch has been embroiled in his ethical lapses for quite some time now, and the eventual outcome, minus a felony conviction, has finally been realized. People are free to choose their candidate of choice, even if their name does not appear on the ballot. Its not the republicans who fear a strong candidate, for anyone can vie for democratic ticket via write-in campaign. Just because you're worried that someone won't vote for the candidate you choose doesn't mean you don't have a choice, again, it's not the lack of choice that worries you, its the fact that you're terrified that someone might not vote for whom you believe best supports your sensibilities.

 

[Moonbeam]

-----------------------------------------
Michael Quote: Funny, just about 100% of the media recounts that were done well after the election showed that Bush would have won. I think that you're not "informed". Maybe "malformed".

I do agree that the law allows the NJ Governor to appoint a Senator if Torricelli resigns. I think that, if he did, the Republicans would pick up so many seats outside of NJ that it would be the most counter-productive thing that the Democrats could possibly do.
----------------------------------------------------

You're the one not informed, I've posted the links a hundred times. Have a cookie. When you leave here you'll feel right as rain. That's right, all the papers said Bush won. What they didn't say is that Gore got the most legal votes state wide.

"You do not agree the law allows........." Who are you a NJ constitutional law scholar? I heard that on PBS All things concidered. Take it up with them. So which is it illegal or counterproductive? Hehe.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: Corn

However it IS arbitrary in that it was not spoken into existence by God, and if there is a good solid reason to push it, then let's push it.

What is that "good solid" reason again? Oh yeah, it's the fact that he's gonna lose big time.

If the supreme court deems Torch's situation to be a good solid reason, then that is it.

I WOULD STILL WANT SOMEONE ELSE ON THE BALLOT.

Um, someone else is on the ballot, the simple fact is he's gonna lose, and since he's gonna lose, party zealouts (such as yourself, even though you keep whining the contrary) are simply attempting to break the law in order to place a candidate of their choosing (not chosen by the people of NJ) whom they believe has a better chance to win.

Uhhh sure. I already pointed out multiple times in this thread that I am a moderate republican. Unfortunately because I am NOT a party zealot, that means that I may support the democrat viewpoint when I see fit, such as at this time. God forbid I think for myself instead of just blindly following whatever political party I happen to be aligned with...

Pray tell, what "platform" for which candidate do you support? Since your first choice retired his seat and hasn't campaigned, please explain what issues he has voiced his concerns about that have given you reason to support his vote............

Based on this morning's article in the NYT he has already devised a platform and is planning a campaign. Keep grasping for straws, maybe you'll get one eventually.

Who is ramming a candidate down anyone's throat?

Well, who is going to chose which democratic candidate will appear on the ballot in 30 days? The people? Is there going to be another primary election prior to the general election to establish a democratic candidate for senate, or is the candidate going to be arbitraily chosen by the party elite, and not by the people?

I'm glad you finally pulled your head out of your butt long enough to word that argument properly without being accusatory, insulting and obnoxious, but Michael beat you to the punch, and I have already conceded that that is a good point.

Who is forcing anyone to vote for the Torch? Please provide me with a certain amount of evidence that people will not be free to vote for whomever they wish as a write-in candidate?

Actually it's forcing people to vote for Forrester. Have you even been paying attention? No one is going to vote for Torch. That's why he's pansying out.

Oh, that's right, you believe that write-in votes are worthless--precisely because you believe that since other people might not vote for your candidate and nothing more.

No. Keep trying to deliberately misinterpret my words. I'm not worried about people voting for my candidate. The point is that in order for a write-in to be successful, MANY PEOPLE MUST VOTE FOR THE SAME CANDIDATE. It doesn't matter to me WHO they vote for, but a majority of the state isn't going to just magically pull one person out of their heads and elect him--if that were the case, why do we bother having primaries at all?

You're a joke.

Please...leave your tiresome personal insults at the door. Do you want to have a debate or throw a temper tantrum?

its the fact that you're terrified that someone might not vote for whom you believe best supports your sensibilities.

Oh right..I've been living here under the likes of Whitman and McGreedy, you think I'm worried about having a winner I don't agree with?
Forget it. I'm tired of you putting words in my mouth.

 

[JoeBaD]

Any means to an end.

Dems should be ashamed.........but they won't be.

You can't shame a democrat, he/she will always have an excuse to offer.

 

[Corn]

I already pointed out multiple times in this thread that I am a moderate republican.

...and I've pointed out many times in this thread, amongst others, that I am Barry Sanders.

Based on this morning's article in the NYT he has already devised a platform and is planning a campaign.

So, you don't know his stance on his issues because he hasn't yet begun his campaign, yet it appears you've already declared him the superior candidate. LOL, so its not the platform as you claimed it to be, its simply that he isn't Torch or Forrester.

Way to make in imformed choice.

Actually it's forcing people to vote for Forrester.

Prove it. No one is forcing people to vote for Forrester, no one is forcing people to vote for the Torch, and no one is removing the column to write in their alternate choices. Talk about grasping at straws.....

The point is that in order for a write-in to be successful, MANY PEOPLE MUST VOTE FOR THE SAME CANDIDATE.

Really? No sh1t, imagine that. Of course that works the same way as people voting for any candidate, that that's neither here nor there. But as you continually demonstrate, you care little about choice and instead focus on the outcome. Bravo.

Oh, and you'll also notice that I removed my meaningless insult from my post, and did it prior to you whining about it too. LOL But perhaps I should put it back for posterity.

It doesn't matter to me WHO they vote for, but a majority of the state isn't going to just magically pull one person out of their heads and elect him--if that were the case, why do we bother having primaries at all?

Sigh....

Firstly, primary elections are there for the sake of the pairing down the candidates who represent the majority parties.

Write-ins historically fail simply because they do not represent a majority party affiliation, ie Democrat or Republican. This situation is completely different, the write-in candidate would be a well known and have the support of his party behind him. Ultimately what hurts his chances of being elected? The midless drone who doesn't know jack about anything who simply selects the name on the ballot that fits his political affiliation--or put simply, the person you claim to despise.