'Hillary C. does not have respect for our people'

[zzzz]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Used2btexaslover]

The caucus process itself is pretty messed up. I have a feeling they are going to get a second look when this is all over.

 

[Napoleon]

The fact that a caucus can occur in the workplace of a union worker is ridiculous. If a union member doesn't agree with his/her union's choice, he/she basically has to decide between personal belief and his/her livelihood. That's simply amazing that that is legal in this country.

 

[triplehorn]

"Our people" in this quote relates to labor, not hispanics in particular, if I'm not mistaken.

Since there are a lot of spanish speaking people who identify with labor goals in Nevada, it makes sense that an ad would be produced in spanish.

.

 

[zzzz]

You always seem to have a strange interpretation of what is said.

 

[triplehorn]

It depends on which sentence of your block quote you choose to interpret. The first one is probably what you are keying on and it's the author being misleading. But the third sentence does focus on why there is such a battle at hand:

In reply to:

---

---

 

[triplehorn]

zzzz- I hope this helps you get it:

In reply to:

---

---

 

[RollingwoodHorn]

I agree that having the caucus in the workplace is a terrible idea. I have no debt it make it easier for people to be involved in it but that's not sufficient to offset the pressure on voting a certain way due to pressure from superiors or peers.

 

[Horn6721]

I am no fan of Hillary but this is at least the second time she has been out " Clintoned" by obama.
anyone who can think holding a cacus in the casinos could result in unbiased voting has been in Vegas too long.
The sad thing is many hispanics who hear the radio ad and who don't speak english will believe Hillary really does have no shame or support for hispanics.
if I hadn't read of the methods she used on her health care plan just yesterday I would almost feel sorry for her.............almost

 

[zzzz]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[triplehorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[washparkhorn]

Obama didn't create the ad and I am sure he must have disavowed the message in the ad. Anyone have a link?

 

[zzzz]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[washparkhorn]

Bill Clinton says he and Chelsea witnessed voter suppression by Union bosses in Nevada:

In reply to:

---

---

 

[triplehorn]

If hispanic people created the ads and not Obama's people, then Clinton should have bigger worries. Asking Obama to denounce them isn't exactly a direct response to their message.

 

[washparkhorn]

Triple - never mind that when Obama had union ads run against him in Iowa, he railed against them.
The Link

 

[triplehorn]

Did Obama call on Clinton to denounce the AFSCM ads critical of Obama that he considered misleading ?

 

[zzzz]

Another ridiculous thing about voting in the workplace is that many uninformed people who otherwise would not care enough to vote will participate in the caucus, simply because everyone else is or to get out of work.

 

[SomeMildLanguage]

1. Lack of secret ballot is not democratic, as it is.
2. Voting, sans secret ballot, in the unionized workplace? Are you serious? Yikes.

Caucuses are awful. This particular one is even worse than usual.

 

[triplehorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Ag with kids]

You usually don't hear the term "our people" to refer to an organized group, unless that group is organized by ethnicity, gender or sexual preference...

Nobody from the NRA, NARAL, NRDC, YCT, etc refer to their members as "our people"...

You DO hear groups such as the NAACP, La Raza, etc using that terminology, though...

 

[zzzz]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Horn6721]

"oh my. I'm in need a shower after that one. Is repugnant too strong a word?"

I do find it repugnant that most of our citizens don't care enough about their country to expend the effort to learn issues and vote.
IF there are any people who participate in this caucus merely to get out of work or because their union leaders tell them to I find that repugnant as well.
Repugnant seems to be the right word

 

[triplehorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[zzzz]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[triplehorn]

you mean you're saying that now.

 

[zzzz]

"You always seem to have a strange interpretation of what is said."

 

[triplehorn]

 

[Horn6721]

Ok Help me out here
Every Dem position on Voter ID has been decidely against it as it " disenfranchises" minority voters. Dems have accused the GOP of being racist and exclusionary for wanting a voter ID
NowDems party in Nev want ID shown

"The very inconvenience that supposedly disenfranchises voters is necessary to protect the validity of a party caucus, where people openly debate the merits and shortcomings of candidates for president?"

TRIPLE
YOU posted : "That is pretty much a righteous and repugnant statement and encapsulates the right's attitude about the justification for vote caging, voter ID laws, etc.

Wht would you say the left's attitude is for requiring voter ID?
esplain how they are different.

 

[triplehorn]

Re: "The very inconvenience that supposedly disenfranchises voters is necessary to protect the validity of a party caucus, where people openly debate the merits and shortcomings of candidates for president?"

This is a very different situation than a secret ballot election. I think what they're saying is that in a open caucus debate, the process can be disproportionately affected, distracted, disrupted, by someone who participates with ulterior motives. This potential is inherent in the caucus process and it doesn't matter whether the voting occurs in casino banquet rooms on the strip or in "untainted" community centers away from the workplace proper.

That's a longwinded way of saying you're comparing apples and oranges. With a voter ID, what you gain in terms of supposed but virtually non-existent election fraud at the ballot box, democracy loses in terms of voter suppression with 'voter ID'.