To be clear. At no point did I bolster your argument for you. 1. The rule you refer to has not been enacted in over 2 decades of federal elections. It has become nearly moot. There was no VP roll call vote on the RNC schedule.
3. Which, if you'd listened, Maddow was not referring to the minutiae of the process. But commenting on what she feels the process has become.
4. Your scenario would cost the RNC more than the upcoming election..
(To be clear. At no point did I bolster your argument for you. )
Are you an idiot or what? My argument was that Rachel Maddow was exaggerating when she said there was no recourse to McCain's VP pick. When you said: "Palin has not garnered official RNC support as you suggest.
In order to do that, there will need to be a vote. As you point out." You bolstered my argument..
(1. The rule you refer to has not been enacted in over 2 decades of federal elections. It has become nearly moot. There was no VP roll call vote on the RNC schedule.)
Just because the rule has not been used, does not mean it could not be revived in an extreme case. For Rachel Maddow to suggest that NOTHING could be done is inaccurate. What is so hard to see about that? If the rule were OFFICIALLY removed from the book, that would indicate that it could not be used.
(3. Which, if you'd listened, Maddow was not referring to the minutiae of the process. But commenting on what she feels the process has become.)
You are a sycophant aren't you. Why couldn't some one supposedly as bright as Rachel Maddow eliminate criticism like mine by saying, "UNLESS THE REPUBLICANS REVIVE SOME LITTLE USED RULE, there is no recourse to McCain's VP pick. - But she didn't watch the vid again you dolt. She EMPHATICALLY says that there is no review, it's "anti-democratic!"
(4. Your scenario would cost the RNC more than the upcoming election..
So.'ll say it. You're not at all bright, are ya?)
You just won't admit you're just wrong will you? see no reason to continue having an argument with someone as delusional as you. I am satisfied that I have successfully defended my argument...
The roll call for VP was scheduled you liar! They cited the very rule we are discussing when they announced that since Palin had demonstrated the necessary support, the roll call WAS SUSPENDED BY ACCLAMATION.
The VP pick is partly a test of the presidential nominee's judgment. Thats not in the rules, but thats what everyone says.. so it may not be an official test but it is a de facto test. By the same token, there is no practical check.. perhaps there COULD be one according to the rules, but it seldom happens in practice.
I find it interesting that you just said that Maddow's criticism of McCain's judgment is "patently false" without fleshing that out
Just like a liberal to make up a new definition of "wrong." Wrong is now "practically correct."
there is no practical check.. perhaps there COULD be one according to the rules,
No - not COULD BE - THERE IS!
And Rachel Maddow wants you to think that no such rule exists. She wants to fool you...I find it interesting that you would blindly support Maddow without fleshing that out...
No no no, you have found a nit and you're picking at it as hard as you can. Meanwhile, you have lost all sense of perspective. Its pretty indicative of the rest of your videos.
Another new word for "error" - nit! You are a NIT wit if you let talking heads like Rachel Maddow get away with blatant distortions. Talk about nit picking tell me you haven't seen Keith Olberman drive home points like, "Lincoln was actually not the founder of the republican party. In a little know, trivial historic fact it is actually known that blah blah blah blah...and let's not forget how many Votes Joe Biden actually got for president..."
Revealing how you, and your ilk will criticize George Bush for MISPRONOUNCING a word, but will listen to the likes of Rachel Maddow and Keith Olberman lie, and just make stuff up to fit their agenda, and keep you watching...Pathetic!
Rules are rules...only the liberal mind would rationalize that, "well no body pays attention to the rules anymore." The point is Rachel Maddow wanted to make it seem as though NOTHING could be done about the choice. That is simply not true...
You'll note that the Sarah Palin choice (like most VPs in recent history) was announced before the convention even began.
So? Are you confusing the concept of McCain making his pick for VP (contingent upon subsequent approval from the delegates) with Rachel Maddow's mistaken concept that McCain's pick is some dictatorial mandate? It's not...
McCain, per convention rules, was nominated tonight.
And can't submit a VP candidate for consideration until tomorrow's procedures.
Exactly my point...His "recommendation" to the delegates as to whom he prefers to be his running mate is not official, even though he announced his "pick" before hand. Bolstering even further the idea that Rachel Maddow is wrong when she tries to imply that McCain's "pick" is not subject to any democratic review...
By your own argument and RNC mandate, a VP pick cannot be officially made before a Presidential candidate is nominated. Which is (was) tonight.
Thank you for bolstering my argument for me. Exactly - What Rachel Maddow wishes you to believe is that some tyrannical decision made by McCain is irrefutable, when in fact it is not even official until the delegates of the convention have had their say. Thanks for confirming with me just how wrong Rachel Maddow is!
Palin has not garnered official RNC support as you suggest.
In order to do that, there will need to be a vote. As you point out.
Correct! Palin will have to demonstrate the support of the delegates. Just as the rules say. So, even you have come full circle and agree with me when I say that Rachel Maddow is wrong when she tries to insinuate that MCain's "pick" is an irreversible mandate. Thank you! So, now you must decide: was she lying when she said that? Or was it just a stupid thing to say?
Your videos are entertaining, I'll give you that. Explaining to you why you are flippin hilarious would be a lost cause. I'm sure there are a lot of people enjoying this idiocy as much as I am.
If you're this sure about your information, rather than just posting it on youtube, why don't you call "Ask Dr. Maddow," Rachel's call-in show on Air America.
212-871-8173
While you're at it, knock off the stupid music in the background. I could barely understand anything you were saying.
Sorry about the music. Usually I keep it low in the mix. This time the two selections were pertinent. So, I pumped them up in the mix just a bit...Stupid Girl by Garbage and Liar by Tonic.
As to calling Rachel's show - why waste my time? I get much more exposure on you tube than her littler listened to radio show...
Ah. So your only point is to point a finger at Rachel and suggest she's stupid and thereby garner attention for yourself? No real interest in finding out what her response would be to your accusations.
I see.
Typical and a shame as Rachel does actively seek out opposing viewpoints and actually *asks* guests if she's making a mistake or missing something.
Why should I need to hear her response? Do you or do you not agree that what she said was factually incorrect? If you won't admit to at least that, you are more of a dedicated sycophant than you know...
Many typos in my prev post..
Sorry, sorry.
sizzle1974 3 years ago
To be clear. At no point did I bolster your argument for you. 1. The rule you refer to has not been enacted in over 2 decades of federal elections. It has become nearly moot. There was no VP roll call vote on the RNC schedule.
3. Which, if you'd listened, Maddow was not referring to the minutiae of the process. But commenting on what she feels the process has become.
4. Your scenario would cost the RNC more than the upcoming election..
So.
I'll say it. You're not at all bright, are ya?
sizzle1974 3 years ago 2
(To be clear. At no point did I bolster your argument for you. )
Are you an idiot or what? My argument was that Rachel Maddow was exaggerating when she said there was no recourse to McCain's VP pick. When you said: "Palin has not garnered official RNC support as you suggest.
In order to do that, there will need to be a vote. As you point out." You bolstered my argument..
marklross2 3 years ago
(1. The rule you refer to has not been enacted in over 2 decades of federal elections. It has become nearly moot. There was no VP roll call vote on the RNC schedule.)
Just because the rule has not been used, does not mean it could not be revived in an extreme case. For Rachel Maddow to suggest that NOTHING could be done is inaccurate. What is so hard to see about that? If the rule were OFFICIALLY removed from the book, that would indicate that it could not be used.
marklross2 3 years ago
(3. Which, if you'd listened, Maddow was not referring to the minutiae of the process. But commenting on what she feels the process has become.)
You are a sycophant aren't you. Why couldn't some one supposedly as bright as Rachel Maddow eliminate criticism like mine by saying, "UNLESS THE REPUBLICANS REVIVE SOME LITTLE USED RULE, there is no recourse to McCain's VP pick. - But she didn't watch the vid again you dolt. She EMPHATICALLY says that there is no review, it's "anti-democratic!"
marklross2 3 years ago
(4. Your scenario would cost the RNC more than the upcoming election..
So.'ll say it. You're not at all bright, are ya?)
You just won't admit you're just wrong will you? see no reason to continue having an argument with someone as delusional as you. I am satisfied that I have successfully defended my argument...
marklross2 3 years ago
The roll call for VP was scheduled you liar! They cited the very rule we are discussing when they announced that since Palin had demonstrated the necessary support, the roll call WAS SUSPENDED BY ACCLAMATION.
marklross2 3 years ago
this man is a homophobe and says the word LESBIAN as if it is a dirty digusting state of being. Like NIGER or jungle bunny.
please delete and ban this poster.
whereiamishere 3 years ago
Wow! You've brought out all the left-wing vitriol...since you don't agree with me, I'm a homophobe and a racist...CLASSIC!
YOU are attributing any negative connotation to the word lesbian. What do you call a lesbian? I have nothing against the African country of Niger...
I will say that you are an idiot...
marklross2 3 years ago
What she said is practically correct.
The VP pick is partly a test of the presidential nominee's judgment. Thats not in the rules, but thats what everyone says.. so it may not be an official test but it is a de facto test. By the same token, there is no practical check.. perhaps there COULD be one according to the rules, but it seldom happens in practice.
I find it interesting that you just said that Maddow's criticism of McCain's judgment is "patently false" without fleshing that out
assmongrel 3 years ago
What she said is practically correct.
Just like a liberal to make up a new definition of "wrong." Wrong is now "practically correct."
there is no practical check.. perhaps there COULD be one according to the rules,
No - not COULD BE - THERE IS!
And Rachel Maddow wants you to think that no such rule exists. She wants to fool you...I find it interesting that you would blindly support Maddow without fleshing that out...
marklross2 3 years ago
No no no, you have found a nit and you're picking at it as hard as you can. Meanwhile, you have lost all sense of perspective. Its pretty indicative of the rest of your videos.
assmongrel 3 years ago
Another new word for "error" - nit! You are a NIT wit if you let talking heads like Rachel Maddow get away with blatant distortions. Talk about nit picking tell me you haven't seen Keith Olberman drive home points like, "Lincoln was actually not the founder of the republican party. In a little know, trivial historic fact it is actually known that blah blah blah blah...and let's not forget how many Votes Joe Biden actually got for president..."
marklross2 3 years ago
Revealing how you, and your ilk will criticize George Bush for MISPRONOUNCING a word, but will listen to the likes of Rachel Maddow and Keith Olberman lie, and just make stuff up to fit their agenda, and keep you watching...Pathetic!
marklross2 3 years ago
To clarify your clarification.
You'll note that the Sarah Palin choice (like most VPs in recent history) was announced before the convention even began.
The rules you cite do, indeed, exist. But are not taken quite as literally as you assume. Think about it, friend...
McCain, per convention rules, was nominated tonight.
And can't submit a VP candidate for consideration until tomorrow's procedures.
sizzle1974 3 years ago
Rules are rules...only the liberal mind would rationalize that, "well no body pays attention to the rules anymore." The point is Rachel Maddow wanted to make it seem as though NOTHING could be done about the choice. That is simply not true...
marklross2 3 years ago
Pay attention closely this time.
By your own argument and RNC mandate, a VP pick cannot be officially made before a Presidential candidate is nominated. Which is (was) tonight.
And. 1984 was the last time in our history that a vp nomination was made by roll call vote by either party. I'm not sure that one is even scheduled.
Palin has not garnered official RNC support as you suggest.
In order to do that, there will need to be a vote. As you point out.
sizzle1974 3 years ago
You'll note that the Sarah Palin choice (like most VPs in recent history) was announced before the convention even began.
So? Are you confusing the concept of McCain making his pick for VP (contingent upon subsequent approval from the delegates) with Rachel Maddow's mistaken concept that McCain's pick is some dictatorial mandate? It's not...
marklross2 3 years ago
McCain, per convention rules, was nominated tonight.
And can't submit a VP candidate for consideration until tomorrow's procedures.
Exactly my point...His "recommendation" to the delegates as to whom he prefers to be his running mate is not official, even though he announced his "pick" before hand. Bolstering even further the idea that Rachel Maddow is wrong when she tries to imply that McCain's "pick" is not subject to any democratic review...
marklross2 3 years ago
By your own argument and RNC mandate, a VP pick cannot be officially made before a Presidential candidate is nominated. Which is (was) tonight.
Thank you for bolstering my argument for me. Exactly - What Rachel Maddow wishes you to believe is that some tyrannical decision made by McCain is irrefutable, when in fact it is not even official until the delegates of the convention have had their say. Thanks for confirming with me just how wrong Rachel Maddow is!
marklross2 3 years ago
Palin has not garnered official RNC support as you suggest.
In order to do that, there will need to be a vote. As you point out.
Correct! Palin will have to demonstrate the support of the delegates. Just as the rules say. So, even you have come full circle and agree with me when I say that Rachel Maddow is wrong when she tries to insinuate that MCain's "pick" is an irreversible mandate. Thank you! So, now you must decide: was she lying when she said that? Or was it just a stupid thing to say?
marklross2 3 years ago
Your videos are entertaining, I'll give you that. Explaining to you why you are flippin hilarious would be a lost cause. I'm sure there are a lot of people enjoying this idiocy as much as I am.
jennyjennyjen 3 years ago
No lost cause. I'm all ears! Let's have it!
marklross2 3 years ago
Are there any other candidates for Vice President this year?
assmongrel 3 years ago
It doesn't matter. The rules say that even if there is only one, that candidate still must demonstrate support from the delegates...
marklross2 3 years ago
If you're this sure about your information, rather than just posting it on youtube, why don't you call "Ask Dr. Maddow," Rachel's call-in show on Air America.
212-871-8173
While you're at it, knock off the stupid music in the background. I could barely understand anything you were saying.
ShelaghCol 3 years ago
Sorry about the music. Usually I keep it low in the mix. This time the two selections were pertinent. So, I pumped them up in the mix just a bit...Stupid Girl by Garbage and Liar by Tonic.
As to calling Rachel's show - why waste my time? I get much more exposure on you tube than her littler listened to radio show...
marklross2 3 years ago
Ah. So your only point is to point a finger at Rachel and suggest she's stupid and thereby garner attention for yourself? No real interest in finding out what her response would be to your accusations.
I see.
Typical and a shame as Rachel does actively seek out opposing viewpoints and actually *asks* guests if she's making a mistake or missing something.
It's called having an open mind.
ShelaghCol 3 years ago
Why should I need to hear her response? Do you or do you not agree that what she said was factually incorrect? If you won't admit to at least that, you are more of a dedicated sycophant than you know...
marklross2 3 years ago