DNC Certifications of Nomination

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31119
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

DNC Certifications of Nomination

#126

Post by mimi » Sun Jun 19, 2011 6:56 pm

Amazing. Fogbowers are acting like birthers.Neither the Certification form provided by the Hawaii Democratic Party nor that provided by the Democratic National Committee meets all of the requirements of the Hawaii Statute.Neither contains both: A statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States ConstitutionandA statement that the candidates are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and the national party, giving the time, place, and manner of the selection.Who said either had to contain both?



User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31119
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

DNC Certifications of Nomination

#127

Post by mimi » Sun Jun 19, 2011 6:56 pm

But the Hawaii OCON form doesn't have the Constitutional provisional wording does it? No. It just says he is legally ok to be on the ballot. Totally different. I'm just reading what it states factually.What difference does it make whether it says the word, constitutionally or not? Seriously I really would like to know why you are making an issue of it.Remember, substance is nothing to birthtards. All they care about is magic words, and only if they would "disqualify" a black man in the White House. They're really just racist inbreeds, not activists or anything of the sort. They know their arguments have no merit at all, which is why they're so willing to abandon them entirely when they don't work out and then move on to another completely contradictory argument. Must suck to be so mentally incapable.I am a African-American and I am not racist by any means.Is this Pam Barnett?



User avatar
raicha
Posts: 7344
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Contact:

DNC Certifications of Nomination

#128

Post by raicha » Sun Jun 19, 2011 6:58 pm

THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provision of the national Democratic Parties balloting at the Presidential Preference Poll and Caucus held on February 19th, 2008 in the State of Hawaii and by acclamation at the National Democratic Convention held August 27, 2008 in Denver, Colorado."Seriously, you think that statement makes sense with the missing line?A "national" Preference Poll and Caucus held in February in the State of Hawaii?Verbie agrees with me.Yes, they are stating that these are candidates that the state Party selected under state Party rules on February 19, 2008. I hate to quote Wikipedia, but it's a good place to start: [link]Hawaii Democratic caucuses,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii_Dem ... uses,_2008[/link]And, they are completing the (c)(1)(C) statement by verifying that candidates were also selected at the national convention.



User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31119
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

DNC Certifications of Nomination

#129

Post by mimi » Sun Jun 19, 2011 7:00 pm

I realize the Hawaii form is messed up, but I think the DNC form that was submitted with it includes all the required stuff.but IANAL.All the stuff was on the forms.



Somerset
Posts: 3704
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:52 am
Location: Silicon Valley
Occupation: Lab rat

DNC Certifications of Nomination

#130

Post by Somerset » Sun Jun 19, 2011 7:03 pm

Wow. Go to sleep for a few hours and all kinds of fun breaks loose.I gotta say that the tone in this thread has become a little shrill, and some of the attacks and slurs hurled at our latest birfer toy made me cringe. It came here, asked a question nicely, and was almost immediately tried, convicted, sentenced and is about to be jailed. To me, that didn't seem very nice. True, it's motives were pretty transparent, and it wasn't hard to see where it was going to try and lead the conversation that way. But we pride ourselves on our ability to gather substantiated facts, then use those facts to construct logically and legally sound arguments that debunk falsehoods, not descend into shrill attacks.In many conspiracy theories, there are tidbits of data that are out of place. The theorists grab onto those tidbits and try to make them into something much larger than they are. Obviously this is one of those tidbits. As usual, raicha nails it from the purely legal standpoint: The letter from the DPOH is irrelevant, because it's the letter from the DNC that certifies the candidates. Every other argument after that is good fun, but equally irrelevant. As for the difference between the 2004 and 2008 letters from the DPOH, it is kinda interesting. Who knows, maybe the person who typed the letter was a PUMA and subconsciously projected their bias. Maybe it was just a careless mistake. It's an interesting question, but just that. As for the answer, like the equally important question of "how many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie-Pop," the world may never know.



User avatar
Sequoia32
Posts: 4710
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:47 pm

DNC Certifications of Nomination

#131

Post by Sequoia32 » Sun Jun 19, 2011 7:11 pm

Who said either had to contain both?the appropriate official of those parties shall file a sworn application with the chief election officerIt doesn't say "officials" and it doesn't say "applications".You and Raicha are arguing like birthers. It is obvious that a line was deleted from the state form.I'm done with both of you.


So far every case of Ebola in this country got it by helping people. So relax, Republicans, you're in the clear. - Tina Dupuy

User avatar
raicha
Posts: 7344
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Contact:

DNC Certifications of Nomination

#132

Post by raicha » Sun Jun 19, 2011 7:15 pm

Who said either had to contain both?the appropriate official of those parties shall file a sworn application with the chief election officerIt doesn't say "officials" and it doesn't say "applications".You and Raicha are arguing like birthers. It is obvious that a line was deleted from the state form.I'm done with both of you.Your argument requires you to explain away "mistakes" by state party officials that the DNC was forced to correct. My argument is based on a legal analysis of the statute that requires a single application submitted by an appropriate official that contains more than one statement.My argument supports the actions of the State of Hawaii, the state Democratic Party and the National Democratic Party.And you call me a birther.Okaay.



User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31119
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

DNC Certifications of Nomination

#133

Post by mimi » Sun Jun 19, 2011 7:17 pm

Who said either had to contain both?the appropriate official of those parties shall file a sworn application with the chief election officerIt doesn't say "officials" and it doesn't say "applications".You and Raicha are arguing like birthers. It is obvious that a line was deleted from the state form.I'm done with both of you.The Chair and the Secretary of the National and State Party signed. Are they not officials?It says 'Nomination' and not 'Application'. But... okay. Be done with me. :-?



User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 26443
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

DNC Certifications of Nomination

#134

Post by Foggy » Sun Jun 19, 2011 7:27 pm

Did everybody miss my post? If you want to continue edumacatin' the Sarge, go to the Birthers forum.If we're just infighting, I'm out of it, and they ain't bringin' me back in!


"When my fist clenches, crack it open,
before I use it and lose my cool,
and when I smile, tell me some bad news,
before I laugh, and act like a fool."
- The Who

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 9245
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

DNC Certifications of Nomination

#135

Post by Mikedunford » Sun Jun 19, 2011 7:41 pm

Did everybody miss my post? If you want to continue edumacatin' the Sarge, go to the Birthers forum.If we're just infighting, I'm out of it, and they ain't bringin' me back in!I admit that I missed a lot of this today - we're ass deep in boxes and packing material as we prepare for the PCS back to the land of the [link]Electric Strawberry,http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... WtJA8rQFiA[/link] - but I was a bit taken aback by just how vehement the reaction to this guy has been. But since he's in the birfer bin now, I've got a question for Foggy - is it possible to move the relevant part of this thread there so he can continue to participate in the part of the discussion he started, or is that too much of a pain in the ass?


"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
raicha
Posts: 7344
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Contact:

DNC Certifications of Nomination

#136

Post by raicha » Sun Jun 19, 2011 7:43 pm

Did everybody miss my post? If you want to continue edumacatin' the Sarge, go to the Birthers forum.If we're just infighting, I'm out of it, and they ain't bringin' me back in!I admit that I missed a lot of this today - we're ass deep in boxes and packing material as we prepare for the PCS back to the land of the [link]Electric Strawberry,http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... WtJA8rQFiA[/link] - but I was a bit taken aback by just how vehement the reaction to this guy has been. But since he's in the birfer bin now, I've got a question for Foggy - is it possible to move the relevant part of this thread there so he can continue to participate in the part of the discussion he started, or is that too much of a pain in the ass?He can still read it Mike and get all the edumacatin' he needs.



User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14800
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

DNC Certifications of Nomination

#137

Post by Reality Check » Sun Jun 19, 2011 8:23 pm

I think recent events have increased the sensitivity of the Birther Bullshit Detectors® around here.


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31119
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

DNC Certifications of Nomination

#138

Post by mimi » Sun Jun 19, 2011 8:34 pm

Never heard of Orly Taitz.Doesn't copy the text direct from the Hawaii Gov site, but from a birfer place.Accuses Nancy Pelosi and the DNC of conspiracy and fraud.no.



User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 9245
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

DNC Certifications of Nomination

#139

Post by Mikedunford » Sun Jun 19, 2011 8:34 pm

I think recent events have increased the sensitivity of the Birther Bullshit Detectors® around here.Fair point.


"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

DNC Certifications of Nomination

#140

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Sun Jun 19, 2011 8:39 pm

The obvious scrivener's error at the center of this discussion is practically an exemplar of a moot point, since it would make no difference to anything at all in the real world. Nobody was harmed by it, the outcome of no election would be changed by it, and one would assume Hawaii will fix this scrivener's error by next election, unless it is so utterly insignificant that they haven't yet noticed it.



Litlebritdifrnt2
Posts: 2885
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:36 pm

DNC Certifications of Nomination

#141

Post by Litlebritdifrnt2 » Sun Jun 19, 2011 8:49 pm

The obvious scrivener's error at the center of this discussion is practically an exemplar of a moot point, since it would make no difference to anything at all in the real world. Nobody was harmed by it, the outcome of no election would be changed by it, and one would assume Hawaii will fix this scrivener's error by next election, unless it is so utterly insignificant that they haven't yet noticed it.Ha "scrivener's error" what a wonderful term, Insurance Companies love to use it when an insured tries to prove that a policy says one thing and the Insurance Company says it says another.



User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 11437
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

DNC Certifications of Nomination

#142

Post by Whatever4 » Sun Jun 19, 2011 8:54 pm

:lol: who got Stern all riled up?He's always riled up. He's the Granddaddy Grumpie.


"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (R-ME)

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 15742
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

DNC Certifications of Nomination

#143

Post by Suranis » Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:01 pm

I too am a little uncomfortable with the vehemence of the responses by some people here. I tried to at least engage the facts he was saying without going on the guy himself.


"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

obsolete
Posts: 239
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:42 am

DNC Certifications of Nomination

#144

Post by obsolete » Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:04 pm

Sequoia32 is correct, the 2008 form is missing a line for one reason or another.While this obviously doesn't void the election or any such thing, it does no harm to point out this fact to birthers who demand to know why the forms are different.Simple. Typo.It is easy to explain, instead of constantly telling the birfers how it doesn't matter.



User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14800
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

DNC Certifications of Nomination

#145

Post by Reality Check » Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:08 pm

Sequoia32 is correct, the 2008 form is missing a line for one reason or another.While this obviously doesn't void the election or any such thing, it does no harm to point out this fact to birthers who demand to know why the forms are different.Simple. Typo.It is easy to explain, instead of constantly telling the birfers how it doesn't matter.I agree this is the most likely explanation but MSGT will never buy it.


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 15742
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

DNC Certifications of Nomination

#146

Post by Suranis » Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:12 pm

Yep, very true Obsolete.Sequoia32 is correct, the 2008 form is missing a line for one reason or another.While this obviously doesn't void the election or any such thing, it does no harm to point out this fact to birthers who demand to know why the forms are different.Simple. Typo.It is easy to explain, instead of constantly telling the birfers how it doesn't matter.


"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

Somerset
Posts: 3704
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:52 am
Location: Silicon Valley
Occupation: Lab rat

DNC Certifications of Nomination

#147

Post by Somerset » Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:15 pm

Sequoia32 is correct, the 2008 form is missing a line for one reason or another.While this obviously doesn't void the election or any such thing, it does no harm to point out this fact to birthers who demand to know why the forms are different.Simple. Typo.It is easy to explain, instead of constantly telling the birfers how it doesn't matter.I agree this is the most likely explanation but MSGT will never buy it.That may very well be the case. We should at least extend it the courtesy of saying so itself.



User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14800
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

DNC Certifications of Nomination

#148

Post by Reality Check » Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:29 pm

" Pretending he didn't know who Taitz was earned him my lasting scorn. As I said in the new thread, he registered at a forum that has over 20,000 posts on Taitz, quotes an obscure piece of birther tripe and says he never heard of Orly Taitz. Prove me wrong and I will be the first to apologize to MSGT.


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31119
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

DNC Certifications of Nomination

#149

Post by mimi » Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:31 pm

It's why I don't do the birthers section here.But you guys can.I think you should read the post he quoted though. [/break1]blogspot.com/2011/01/o-con-had-legal-help-from-non-partisan.html]http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2011/01 ... tisan.htmlYou can debate it with him. In the birther engagers section.



Post Reply

Return to “"Factual" Claims by Birthers”