The motion to put God back in the DNC platform language and acknowledge Jerusalem as the capital of Israel were two separate amendments. Can anybody think of any other parliamentary procedure that wouldn't give amendments separate votes? Why was only one vote used on these two?
Raelyn
Favorite Answer
If the votes had been held separately, the God vote would have passed on the first try while the Jerusalme vote would have even soundly rejected. Politicians routinely tack unpopular ideas onto popular ones to force their passage.
Queen of Sheba
Long story short, the Democratic National Convention needed 2/3 of the delegates to approve putting “God” and making Jerusalem the capital of Israel back into the DNC platform via a voice vote. It was roughly split the first time. It was roughly split the second time. The third time, the nays seemed slightly louder than the yays and yet they ruled the motion passed. This produced a flurry of boos against adding God and Jerusalem back into the platform. That’s how they started day 2 of the Democratic National Convention: By booing God and making Jerusalem the capital of Israel.
Its not like Israel asked America to decide for them where their capitol should be.
Israel is not a colony. It is a sovern nation-state. So, why on earth would the Democratic National Convention put it to a vote which city should be another country's capitol ?
In Israel, the American Embassy is now situated safely in Tel Aviv, where few Muslim Extremists venture. Due to the Jewish majority in that city, the streets there are very safe.
Yet, there has been talk lately of moving the Embassy into a hot bed, to a place where it will cause problems. The Holy City, inside and outside of the wall, is currently fairly safe both day and night, partly due to the fact there is no American Embassy there.
We were discussing when I was in Jerusalem, some Israelis who worked there, a Christian from Holland and a Palestinian Arab , and me, an American. We were all staying in the same hostel there in Jerusalem. We all were in tune with the sentiments of a large population of Arabs who live in Jerusalem, and iln nearby areas, having walked shoulder to shoulder with them for a while already.
.
Everyone of us agreed it was a very bad plan to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, because it could cause strife. Why squeeze a pimple that is better left alone to heal so it will not cause a scar?
I'm wondering why the Democrats and the Republicans both want to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. Its fine where it is.Tel Aviv is safe and no one will bother it there.
Could the Democratic Party organizers, like Romney, simply be ignorant,? Or is it that the weapons merchants need their stocks so badly that they will manipulate moving the American Embassy to a place that will cause conflict?
The holy city is no place for an embassy. It can only turn the place where Christians and Jews and Muslims flock to pray into a hot bed and a target!
Would we Americans like it if another country decided to vote on whether Washington D.C. or New York should be America's captiol city?
The Democratic Convention was out of line, I say. They may have the right to boo G-d, there, (but it is disrespectful even though many democrats are atheists and agnostics they should have respect for the beliefrs of others. I guess I'm one of the only Dems who believes that though.)
Still, I personally feel they have no right to determine where another country's capitol should be.
It is indeed quite strange that even though the nays were louder than the yeas they announced the yeahs had it.
As an American democrat, who in fact ran on the democratic ticket and recently voted democrat in the primary last week, I am apalled.
: Who else feels the DNC should have instead voted on whether those 30,000 drones congress approved to spy on Americans should do so? Please remember, our treasury lost track of 9 billion dollars during Obama's watch so we'll be borrowing the money on America's credit card with high interest that our descendants will be required to repay?
Hey, just because I' don't trust Obama doesn't mean I'm a Romney fan. I assure you, I am not. But as a democrat I can't in good conscience vote for Obama who should be running on a socialist or communist party ticket.
http://digitaljournal.com/article/319564
who WAS #1?
This was not Congress or Senate but a private organization called the DNC which can run the show the way they want. There aren't exactly any rules which the other Party can hold them to. I saw it on TV and clearly (after 3 tries) the NOs had it. But whoever was on stage declared the Aye's had it. The whole scene was a fiasco which blatantly revealed that the Leadership will do what it wants and consent of the members is irrelevant.
Anonymous
Answering your first question really: The dogma of the Trinity is that there are 3 distinct and separate persons in a unmarried God. God the Son, because the 2d man or woman in this Trinity which continually existed even earlier creation, assumed human nature contained in the variety of Jesus. consequently, Jesus is both God and authentic guy. even if, Jesus is, by utilising Himself, completely God, he's not God all by utilising Himself to the exclusion of the different 2 persons. absolutely everyone co-both stocks contained in the Divine Nature considering the fact that there is not any such ingredient as a million/3 of god. The human nature of Jesus is not so good as God. Jesus in a unmarried with God in both objective and considering the fact that the 2d man or woman of the Trinity.
Joe Finkle
There's nothing wrong in parliamentary procedure about that. Acknowledging a 2/3 voice vote when it sounded like 50/50 is improper procedure, but Boehner did the same thing at the RNC. At the convention, it is kind of funny because it doesn't matter. When they do it in the Michigan State House, it is a blatant violation of the State Constitution.