I’m going to move on and leave you to your ‘facts’. Wishing you much peace, seems you could use some.

good read!

As for Florida, I don’t see how this could have gone with 100% vote. That would have been unfair to the other 48 states that did follow the rules. It was a compromise to try to be fair to ALL sides, not just your candidate because it wasn’t just about your candidate or the other candidate. It was about ALL the states and ALL the voters.

FIrst off, South Carolina, New hampshire, and Iowa all violated the rules without sanction.

Secondly, the purpose of the sanctions (if you read the rules, this is obvious) is to ensure that those who do violate the sanctions do not benefit from them. That is why the rules AS WRITTEN AND INTENDED, provide for TWO different kinds of penalties…

1) 50% loss of delegate strength for a state that violates the sanctions Rule 20 C 1 A
2) If a candidate campaigns in a state that has been subjected to sanctions because of timing violation, s/he is ineligible for ANY delegates from that state. Rule 20 C 1 b

Alexis Herman flat out lied when she said there was no rule against the candidates campaigning in Florida and Michigan (and that lie signalled that she was in the bag for Obama). There IS a rule — 20 C 1 b s cited above. The fact that the penalties were rendered moot do not, in any way, preclude the existence of the rule.

What the RBC did was try and “send a message” about how tough they were going to be by imposing sanctions on VOTERS that the RULES never intended… and they did so for the same reason that Barack Obama took his name off the Michigan ballot — everone assumed that there would be a consensus candidate who won the necessary number of pledged delegates to lock in the nomination.

There is a way to impose a penalty while doing minimal damage to the people’s votes — shut out the super-delegates entirely (although I think that Ausman is correct with regard to DNC members, if you gotta bend/break a rule, the rule you mess with is the one that doesn’t disenfranchise voters.)

But the fact is that Florida had NO POWER over the choice of date, and the voters of that state should not have been penalized at all. Michigan, on the other hand, was in the control of Democrats.

Obama wanted to disenfranchise voters who didn’t support him — jewish voters, hispanic voters, older voters, and women. and he got his way.