Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   County Clerk rules that eligibility problems with some of the people collecting signatures for his ballot petitions means that Rep John Conyers isn't eligible to have his name on the Dem primary ballot as he runs for his TWENTY-SIXTH term   (onpolitics.usatoday.com) divider line 60
    More: Asinine, Rep John Conyers, Democratic Party, write-in vote, clerk  
•       •       •

1153 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 May 2014 at 2:03 PM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



60 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-06 06:12:03 PM  

LibertyHiller: hasty ambush: Term Limits- Twelve years life time total for serving in congress.

Right, because term limits have worked so well in California. Just turn the whole place over to the staffers and the lobbyists, why don't we?





That is California. Other states counties, cities and towns that have term limits don't seem to have the same problems.
 
2014-05-06 06:23:13 PM  

K3rmy: Magorn: Tag is both for the Stupid ballot Rules AND the notion of sending the same guy back to congress for 50 freaking years

He is Republican, most likely a fundie, and a term and the minute is the same in the eyes of the Lord.

/off to the gym





He is a democrat like these guys. The top ten longest serving memebers of congress have all been/are democrats.

1 John Dingell (H) Democratic Party 58 years, 144 days

2 Robert Byrd (H,S) Democratic Party 57 years, 176 days

3 Carl Hayden (H,S) Democratic Party 56 years, 319 days

4 Daniel Inouye (H,S) Democratic Party 53 years, 118 days

5 Jamie L. Whitten (H) Democratic Party 53 years, 60 days

6 Carl Vinson (H) Democratic Party 50 years, 61 days

7 Emanuel Celler (H) Democratic Party 49 years, 305 days

8 John Conyers (H) Democratic Party 49 years, 123 days

9. Sam Rayburn (H) Democratic Party 48 years, 257 days

10. Sidney R. Yates (H,I) Democratic Party 48 years, 0 days
 
2014-05-06 07:02:37 PM  

LibertyHiller: Arkanaut: Arkanaut: Moosecakes: Why should it matter if the petitioners are registered voters, so long as the signees are? What a stupid rule. And yes, it's totally stupid that this guy has been in Congress for this long. There really needs to be term limits in Congress.

Agreed. You're just holding a clipboard, not voting for the guy. I guess it could be some weird Michigan rule though.

//worked on campaigns as a 17-year-old volunteer and in districts I didn't live in
//too busy monitoring the polls on Primary Day anyway.

Followup: apparent it is a weird Michigan thing:

http://www.freep.com/article/20140502/NEWS06/305020117/John-Conyers- Ca thy-Garrett

"By law, Daniel Pennington and Tiara Willis Pittman should have been registered voters when they gathered the ballot signatures."

Still stupid.

No, stupid would be a campaign manager not knowing the law and not telling people they had to be registered to even gather signatures.

Explain why you think it's a stupid law, if you don't mind. (For comparison, my idea of stupid is allowing paid signature gatherers, as California does.)


The default status of rules and regulations is that they should not exist unless they serve a purpose with a net change to society for the better.

We should not ask why a law shouldn't exist, until we ask why it should. If that question has no answer then it should not be law.
 
2014-05-06 07:12:44 PM  

LibertyHiller: dywed88: LibertyHiller: Arkanaut: Arkanaut: Moosecakes: Why should it matter if the petitioners are registered voters, so long as the signees are? What a stupid rule. And yes, it's totally stupid that this guy has been in Congress for this long. There really needs to be term limits in Congress.

Agreed. You're just holding a clipboard, not voting for the guy. I guess it could be some weird Michigan rule though.

//worked on campaigns as a 17-year-old volunteer and in districts I didn't live in
//too busy monitoring the polls on Primary Day anyway.

Followup: apparent it is a weird Michigan thing:

http://www.freep.com/article/20140502/NEWS06/305020117/John-Conyers- Ca thy-Garrett

"By law, Daniel Pennington and Tiara Willis Pittman should have been registered voters when they gathered the ballot signatures."

Still stupid.

No, stupid would be a campaign manager not knowing the law and not telling people they had to be registered to even gather signatures.

Explain why you think it's a stupid law, if you don't mind. (For comparison, my idea of stupid is allowing paid signature gatherers, as California does.)

Why is it relevnt who holds a clipboard. The only thing that should matter are the people that sign.

Because "who holds the clipboard" determines who signs.

cptjeff: LibertyHiller: Explain why you think it's a stupid law, if you don't mind. (For comparison, my idea of stupid is allowing paid signature gatherers, as California does.)

Because as long as the people actually signing are voters, or even just legal residents, why the fark should it matter who's holding the clipboard?

This excludes the 16 year old kid who lives in the district and wants to get involved with his or her community but isn't allowed to vote yet being able to help out. This excludes the recent immigrant who wants to help make his or her community a better place. Don't know what Michigan law is on felon voting, but it may exclude people who have done their time and are trying to find their way back into society.

Seriously, there is absolutely no farking purpose to that law other than to make it harder to get access to the ballot. It's antidemocratic in the purest form. While the campaign manager was an idiot for allowing this to happen, it's not a good law and is probably vulnerable to a legal challenge.

Requiring that someone be a registered voter to circulate a petition is not an unreasonably high threshold; after all, about half the states don't allow referendums or initiated amendments and statutes at all, period, full stop. If you want to call something "antidemocratic in its purest form," that's a far better place to start, perhaps?

As for teenagers/recent immigrants who want to get involved, there's still door-to-door work (flyers, GOTV, etc.) and plenty of that to do, especially when it comes to local campaigns.

Moral of the story: Don't complain about the rules after your signature collectors fark up. If you're a 25-term congresscritter and can't find a competent campaign manager, what does that say about your judgement?


Pretty sure, the people who sign determine who signs.


The person holding the clip can only increase the number of potential signers and try to convince people to decide to sign. Both legitimate activities don't require someone to be a registerred voter.

And what do referendums have to do with anything?
 
2014-05-06 07:26:02 PM  

Smackledorfer: LibertyHiller: Arkanaut: Arkanaut: Moosecakes: Why should it matter if the petitioners are registered voters, so long as the signees are? What a stupid rule. And yes, it's totally stupid that this guy has been in Congress for this long. There really needs to be term limits in Congress.

Agreed. You're just holding a clipboard, not voting for the guy. I guess it could be some weird Michigan rule though.

//worked on campaigns as a 17-year-old volunteer and in districts I didn't live in
//too busy monitoring the polls on Primary Day anyway.

Followup: apparent it is a weird Michigan thing:

http://www.freep.com/article/20140502/NEWS06/305020117/John-Conyers- Ca thy-Garrett

"By law, Daniel Pennington and Tiara Willis Pittman should have been registered voters when they gathered the ballot signatures."

Still stupid.

No, stupid would be a campaign manager not knowing the law and not telling people they had to be registered to even gather signatures.

Explain why you think it's a stupid law, if you don't mind. (For comparison, my idea of stupid is allowing paid signature gatherers, as California does.)

The default status of rules and regulations is that they should not exist unless they serve a purpose with a net change to society for the better.

We should not ask why a law shouldn't exist, until we ask why it should. If that question has no answer then it should not be law.


Well, you can philosophize while I focus on reality; what "should" be doesn't really matter to me as much as what is. If the court says that requirement is bad law, I'm OK with that. If it's upheld, we'll know why.
 
2014-05-06 07:41:45 PM  

LibertyHiller: Smackledorfer: LibertyHiller: Arkanaut: Arkanaut: Moosecakes: Why should it matter if the petitioners are registered voters, so long as the signees are? What a stupid rule. And yes, it's totally stupid that this guy has been in Congress for this long. There really needs to be term limits in Congress.

Agreed. You're just holding a clipboard, not voting for the guy. I guess it could be some weird Michigan rule though.

//worked on campaigns as a 17-year-old volunteer and in districts I didn't live in
//too busy monitoring the polls on Primary Day anyway.

Followup: apparent it is a weird Michigan thing:

http://www.freep.com/article/20140502/NEWS06/305020117/John-Conyers- Ca thy-Garrett

"By law, Daniel Pennington and Tiara Willis Pittman should have been registered voters when they gathered the ballot signatures."

Still stupid.

No, stupid would be a campaign manager not knowing the law and not telling people they had to be registered to even gather signatures.

Explain why you think it's a stupid law, if you don't mind. (For comparison, my idea of stupid is allowing paid signature gatherers, as California does.)

The default status of rules and regulations is that they should not exist unless they serve a purpose with a net change to society for the better.

We should not ask why a law shouldn't exist, until we ask why it should. If that question has no answer then it should not be law.

Well, you can philosophize while I focus on reality; what "should" be doesn't really matter to me as much as what is. If the court says that requirement is bad law, I'm OK with that. If it's upheld, we'll know why.


That is a pretty weak dodge.

We are discussing whether a law is bad ("stupid") or not. You ask others why they dislike a law/regulation. I ask you why you support it.

If you support it, why?

You can stick your head in the ground and cry about 'philosophy' (the word you may be looking for is reason, or perhaps logical thinking?) but the fact is that if you cannot show any benefits to a law or regulation then it really does not matter what the negatives are: it is a stupid law.

Example: "no man shall jump, unassisted by mechanical device, more than five feet higher than his initial elevation". That is a stupid farking law. I don't know how rarely people jump five feet vertically so it may be difficult to explain what is bad about the law, but the complete lack of positives should be enough in and of itself.


What benefit to michigan do you feel the regulation in question serves? If none, it is a stupid law.
 
2014-05-06 08:07:28 PM  
This is for a primary, for his 26th term, as a Democrat (I.e. no dark horse Tea Party candidate). He's likely running unopposed, and if not, is the strong favorite. Is the ballot going to look weird with basically just a blank? Sure, but worst case scenario, he'll mount a write in campaign, and win easily. This is non-story click bait.
 
2014-05-06 08:13:50 PM  

Nemosomen: This is for a primary, for his 26th term, as a Democrat (I.e. no dark horse Tea Party candidate). He's likely running unopposed, and if not, is the strong favorite. Is the ballot going to look weird with basically just a blank? Sure, but worst case scenario, he'll mount a write in campaign, and win easily. This is non-story click bait.


Oops, I should have read that freep article before commenting. He's got a Democratic opponent.
 
2014-05-06 08:41:35 PM  

Smackledorfer: That is a pretty weak dodge.

We are discussing whether a law is bad ("stupid") or not. You ask others why they dislike a law/regulation. I ask you why you support it.

If you support it, why?


Well, before you got here, a couple of Farkers were claiming the law is stupid, which is pretty weak sauce (if they'd said "unjust" I would have given them more credit) so I asked them to explain why. Although I disagree with their arguments, at least I got an explanation from them, so I owe you one.

I support it because I like the idea that the county clerk's people can verify the circulators are who they say they are from the clerk's own records, but I'm sure (if it comes to that) the county's law-talking people will be able to come up with a few more and they'll probably get some help from the state as well.

The justification for a rule or law may not be immediately apparent to you or me, but that doesn't mean it's without reason. Like I said, if they can't justify it and the court says it's bad law, I'm OK with that. But until then, everyone has to play by the rules, because that's how elections in our society work.
 
2014-05-06 08:45:51 PM  

Nemosomen: Nemosomen: This is for a primary, for his 26th term, as a Democrat (I.e. no dark horse Tea Party candidate). He's likely running unopposed, and if not, is the strong favorite. Is the ballot going to look weird with basically just a blank? Sure, but worst case scenario, he'll mount a write in campaign, and win easily. This is non-story click bait.

Oops, I should have read that freep article before commenting. He's got a Democratic opponent.


And the opponent is the one who challenged the petitions, which has led to the clerk's digging deeper into how the city clerk handled the circulators' registrations. Democracy at work, kids.
 
Displayed 10 of 60 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report