Democrat withdraws from US Senate race in Kansas.....

[Dave Mittner]

Nope. It's not.

How the hell is it not?
Is that not his name? If he were to win, would it not be him who people would say won?

How could he win or lose if based on the ballot if, according to you, he's not actually running?

 

[DarkWizard12]

No, when anyone tries to employ legal technicalities or unintended measures to undermine an otherwise straightforward process, that's underhanded.

hehehe...but whats your definition of "legal technicalities"? or "unintended measures", or "straightforward process"? that's quite a broad brush right there, and it's just so happenstance you use it to favors the democrat in this case. there are plenty of other elections, by both republicans and democrats and national and local elections, where their name was not erased from the ballot because they dropped out. Are all those other instances "underhanded"? And if not, why is this guy raising a fuss then?

 

[bubbabgone]

hehehe...but whats your definition of "legal technicalities"? or "unintended measures", or "straightforward process"? that's quite a broad brush right there, and it's just so happenstance you use it to favors the democrat in this case. there are plenty of other elections, by both republicans and democrats and national and local elections, where their name was not erased from the ballot because they dropped out. Are all those other instances "underhanded"? And if not, why is this guy raising a fuss then?

Here's how it is, my friend ... given the term "underhanded" can't be applied until he knows the (R), (D), or (I) affiliation, I don't think you're going to be able to get through to that one.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Here's how it is, my friend ... given the term "underhanded" can't be applied until he knows the (R), (D), or (I) affiliation, I don't think you're going to be able to get through to that one.

indeed....why is it seem debating politics is fun and enlighten untill partisans come in and have to make everything about a competition? Politics, on paper, is supposed to be about making our country better, not satisfying a factions radical tastes.

 

[jmotivator]

So according to you it's legal to force a person to run for office? Because that seems to be what they're trying to do with the Democrat who withdrew.

And what the hell does Obama have to do with this...

Nobody said he has to run anymore. His name has to remain on the ballot, however, so long as the Dems choose not to replace him.

 

[jmotivator]

Taylor to challenge Kobach ruling keeping him on Senate ballot | CJOnline.com


So Kobach, who clearly has a partisan motive, has decided Taylor's name will remain on the ballot even after he dropped out of the race.
That sounds very much like forcing a person to run for office to me, silly boy.

And this is why we know it is a political stunt. If he doesn't want to campaign anymore that is fine, let the Dems replace him with someone else or let the Democrats run an anti-campaign begging everyone to not vote for their candidate.

How the hell is it not?
Is that not his name? If he were to win, would it not be him who people would say won?

How could he win or lose if based on the ballot if, according to you, he's not actually running?

Don't worry. The idiot was never in any danger of winning.

 

[Linc]

The only idiots as you call them who are voting for the ex-candidate are the ones who supported the Libertaian,
whose name has suddenly disappeared from the ballot.

Never fear though, Washington D.C. resident Sen. Roberts has already fallen behind in the latest poll I've seen.

Can you say Akin and Mourdock ?

And this is why we know it is a political stunt. If he doesn't want to campaign anymore that is fine, let the Dems replace him with someone else or let the Democrats run an anti-campaign begging everyone to not vote for their candidate.



Don't worry. The idiot was never in any danger of winning.

 

[jmotivator]

The only idiots as you call them who are voting for the ex-candidate are the ones who supported the Libertaian,
whose name has suddenly disappeared from the ballot.

Never fear though, Washington D.C. resident Sen. Roberts has already fallen behind in the latest poll I've seen.

Can you say Akin and Mourdock ?

Hey could be! I think the Democrats have finally secured their path to victory in 2014: Don't run as a Democrat!

 

[Dave Mittner]

hehehe...but whats your definition of "legal technicalities"? or "unintended measures", or "straightforward process"? that's quite a broad brush right there, and it's just so happenstance you use it to favors the democrat in this case. there are plenty of other elections, by both republicans and democrats and national and local elections, where their name was not erased from the ballot because they dropped out. Are all those other instances "underhanded"? And if not, why is this guy raising a fuss then?

A name being left on a ballot itself is not underhanded, per se, but when the person who decides that is a friend and political ally of another candidate who benefits from the name remaining, it's hard to argue that that's not underhanded, not to mention an abuse of power.

 

[DarkWizard12]

A name being left on a ballot itself is not underhanded, per se, but when the person who decides that is a friend and political ally of another candidate who benefits from the name remaining, it's hard to argue that that's not underhanded, not to mention an abuse of power.

Well, it depends, would he have removed the name if it was his own party then? Because, if you remember the republican 2008 and 2012 primaries, that had happened a lot in a lot of states, and no one raised a fuss about it. So, from a republican standpoint, it's not unsual in the slightest to leave a name on the ballot, especially if the candidate dropped out after the filing deadline.

 

[Dave Mittner]

Here's how it is, my friend ... given the term "underhanded" can't be applied until he knows the (R), (D), or (I) affiliation, I don't think you're going to be able to get through to that one.

indeed....why is it seem debating politics is fun and enlighten untill partisans come in and have to make everything about a competition? Politics, on paper, is supposed to be about making our country better, not satisfying a factions radical tastes.

So you assume my opinion is driven by partisanship and I wouldn't believe the same were the letters reversed, then you personally attack me based on your assumption. Not only is that a straw man argument but I suspect forum rules say something about attacking other people personally.

Fact is, your assumptions have just made an ass of you both. I would believe the same if the letters were reversed. I'm not even a Democrat, but you seem to have assumed that one as well. I think it's ludicrous to keep anyone's name on a ballot that has no intention of assuming office. Step away from your own partisanship and you might realize how asinine a concept it is to keep his name there, regardless of what political party he associates himself with.

Similarly I'm against the use of campaign attack ads, use of the Hastert Rule, and--to a lesser degree--against the use of filibusters, regardless of which party uses them.

But hey, keep on assuming my partisanship if it helps you bully people around and feel better about yourselves...

 

[Dave Mittner]

Nobody said he has to run anymore. His name has to remain on the ballot, however, so long as the Dems choose not to replace him.

Well, it depends, would he have removed the name if it was his own party then? Because, if you remember the republican 2008 and 2012 primaries, that had happened a lot in a lot of states, and no one raised a fuss about it. So, from a republican standpoint, it's not unsual in the slightest to leave a name on the ballot, especially if the candidate dropped out after the filing deadline.

He should remove the name from the ballot, period. If a candidate has no intent to actually assume office, the name should be removed. Putting it on the ballot will mislead voters and potentially lead them to effectively wasting their vote. I think anyone who claims to give a crap about Democracy should have a problem with that.

And if the ballots have already been printed and it's impossible to remove his name, the polling locations should make it abundantly clear, by other means, that the person doesn't intend to assume office if he wins.

It's bad enough that so many go to the polls with a minuscule amount of knowledge. The last thing we need is the ballots themselves seeming to give them options that aren't actually options.

 

[DarkWizard12]

So you assume my opinion is driven by partisanship and I wouldn't believe the same were the letters reversed, then you personally attack me based on your assumption. Not only is that a straw man argument but I suspect forum rules say something about attacking other people personally.

Fact is, your assumptions have just made an ass of you both. I would believe the same if the letters were reversed. I'm not even a Democrat, but you seem to have assumed that one as well. I think it's ludicrous to keep anyone's name on a ballot that has no intention of assuming office. Step away from your own partisanship and you might realize how asinine a concept it is to keep his name there, regardless of what political party he associates himself with.

Similarly I'm against the use of campaign attack ads, use of the Hastert Rule, and--to a lesser degree--against the use of filibusters, regardless of which party uses them.

But hey, keep on assuming my partisanship if it helps you bully people around and feel better about yourselves...

hmmm, where were you when democrats were filibustering Bush's court nominees? did you even hate the filibuster then? did you consider the democrats tactics "underhanded" then?

 

[Dave Mittner]

hmmm, where were you when democrats were filibustering Bush's court nominees? did you even hate the filibuster then? did you consider the democrats tactics "underhanded" then?

I don't recall having even heard of that at the time, but I fell out of following politics pretty heavily between ~2004 - ~2009.