You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #25: The states might have moved dates, but it was the party that ruled on them. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
Billy Burnett Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-16-08 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #17
25. The states might have moved dates, but it was the party that ruled on them.
Edited on Sat Feb-16-08 02:13 PM by Billy Burnett
If they hold a revote, then WHAT THE FUCK was the damned rule for? They can hold the election when they want, apparently.

This is the election that the party agreed to. The candidates agreed to disenfranchise the voters of MI and FL. And the voters for both of the remaining candidates gave their approval to candidates that have made this well known agreement.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC