• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Dems boo adding God and Jeruselum

Samhain

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
4,939
Reaction score
2,131
Location
Northern Ohio
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
What a bunch of hypocrites and pretenders.
 
"A National Disgrace" - Clint Eastwood
 
Dems don't look good here. Flip-flopping/flailing on Platform.

Updated September 5, 2012, 5:51 p.m. ET
Democrats Restore Platform Language on Jerusalem - WSJ.com
By CAROL E. LEE And JAY SOLOMON

CHARLOTTE, N.C.—After coming under fire for omitting language describing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, Democrats at their national convention Wednesday swiftly reinserted the language in an attempt to defuse Controversy on the eve of President Barack Obama's speech accepting his party's nomination.

Convention delegates, by a voice vote, approved a resolution restoring language the party had put in its 2008 platform, as well as earlier ones, referring to Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish state. But the vote was disputed. Three separate voice votes were called, and only after the third was the issue declared decided—and some delegates then booed.

The delegates also approved language reinserting a reference to God into the platform's language
. The lack of such a reference also had opened the platform to attacks from conservative activists.

The convention's move came after extensive discussions Wednesday with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a lobbying group, and other Jewish organizations over the platform language, a congressional official said. It represented a rapid move to end a controversy that seemed to catch Democratic officials flat-footed.....
 
Last edited:
They had to hold the vote three times just because the ayes and nays were about equal.
 
Its pretty funny that they cant get out of their own way. First they foolishly omit the God and Jerusalem part...because...no matter what that isnt going to play in the big tent. Then...they have a shamvote to put it back in...making them look even MORE foolish...and then they boo the results, completing the trifecta.

And for the record...I watched the video...there is NO WAY that was a 2/3 vote. Gosh...I wonder why they bothered even having a vote if it wasnt going to count?
 
The Democrats are in meltdown mode.

If Obama gets fired, it's going to get ugly.
 
I'm starting to think the DEMOCRAT convention is going to fire up the GOP voters more than the Republican convention did. :)

I think that over the next several weeks--with the chips down more and more everyday--the American people are going to see the true colors of the Libbo movement.
 
Wow! What I find hilarious is that they used the sound level to determine 2/3s. I'd like to see a reporter ask the Chairman how he came to that determination using just the decibels of the crowd. He must be very skilled.

Talk about political stupidity. The move to remove them from the platform was dumb enough. This is just moronic. They should have rushed Joe Biden out right after to say something off the cuff.
 
Does it sound like the Ayes had it to you?

Ted Strickland of Ohio moves to reinstate "God" and "Jerusalem" back into the Democratic Party Platform. They get through the procedural (voice) vote, and then call a vote to re-insert the language.

This requires a two-thirds voice vote.

I think the chair called it the way he wanted to and not how the voice vote actually went. I'm not alone. It certainly sounded like the NOs had a majority, let alone the AYEs having two-thirds.

 
No way in hell that got a 2/3 vote... Watch it for yourself:

 
Democrats' CHICKENS!!!!!!!!!!! ......... are comin home ...... to ROOooost .....
 
I watched it again, thats just friggin embarrassing.
 
Re: Does it sound like the Ayes had it to you?

Dang; already a thread on this. Merge, please.
 
Re: Does it sound like the Ayes had it to you?

based on the reaction to the rule being adopted, it sounded like more positive sounds than negative sounds, telling me that it was probably an ok ruling.

These things are so subjective though, crap like this should be a formal vote to avoid these kinds of issues anyway.

So really, who can tell.
 
Re: Does it sound like the Ayes had it to you?

based on the reaction to the rule being adopted, it sounded like more positive sounds than negative sounds, telling me that it was probably an ok ruling.

These things are so subjective though, crap like this should be a formal vote to avoid these kinds of issues anyway.

So really, who can tell.

It was clear the nays had it
 
Re: Does it sound like the Ayes had it to you?

based on the reaction to the rule being adopted, it sounded like more positive sounds than negative sounds, telling me that it was probably an ok ruling.

They needed two-thirds, not a majority.

But yes, it should have been a formal vote.
 
Re: Does it sound like the Ayes had it to you?

They needed two-thirds, not a majority.

But yes, it should have been a formal vote.

I know, but if we are going to gauge things on sound, than, we need to look at all the evidence.
 
No way in hell that got a 2/3 vote... Watch it for yourself:



Ya there's no way that was 2/3rds, I mean the first voice vote to hear the proposed amendment was clearly two thirds or at almost majority but the three for the actual proposal were pretty even, heck I think those last nays were louder than the yays on the third vote.

Pretty damn silly if you ask me.
 
Re: Does it sound like the Ayes had it to you?

I know, but if we are going to gauge things on sound, than, we need to look at all the evidence.

The vote's what mattered; it certainly didn't sound like a 2/3 majority said "aye."

But even if "more positive sounds than negative sounds" was the reaction, that's not two-thirds, so the "evidence" still goes against it.
 
Re: Does it sound like the Ayes had it to you?

The vote's what mattered; it certainly didn't sound like a 2/3 majority said "aye."

But even if "more positive sounds than negative sounds" was the reaction, that's not two-thirds, so the "evidence" still goes against it.

Harshaw, its called evidence. If people were pissed off, they would act pissed off. Because they weren't pissed off at the ruling, than that gives evidence towards how people may have voted. If there were a stronger negative reaction, it would mean more people voted nay as opposed to fewer people voting nay but being louder.

Because the vote was unknowable and all we have is "it sounds like this ..." which is a terrible thing to ascribe evidence to, but which you are doing, look to other activities to support your statement is all.
 
Re: Does it sound like the Ayes had it to you?

Ted Strickland of Ohio moves to reinstate "God" and "Jerusalem" back into the Democratic Party Platform. They get through the procedural (voice) vote, and then call a vote to re-insert the language.

This requires a two-thirds voice vote.

I think the chair called it the way he wanted to and not how the voice vote actually went. I'm not alone. It certainly sounded like the NOs had a majority, let alone the AYEs having two-thirds.

It sounded like half and half to me....Which would mean that it shouldn't of been adopted.
 
Re: Does it sound like the Ayes had it to you?

Harshaw, its called evidence. If people were pissed off, they would act pissed off. Because they weren't pissed off at the ruling, than that gives evidence towards how people may have voted. If there were a stronger negative reaction, it would mean more people voted nay as opposed to fewer people voting nay but being louder.

Because the vote was unknowable and all we have is "it sounds like this ..." which is a terrible thing to ascribe evidence to, but which you are doing, look to other activities to support your statement is all.

I would say the loud booing at the end was a pretty strong reaction....
 
Re: Does it sound like the Ayes had it to you?

I would say the loud booing at the end was a pretty strong reaction....

The booing was less loud than the cheering.
 
Back
Top Bottom