Delegates....a rigged system?

[kaz]

They are not our 2 choices by law.

Do you need to misrepresent what I've said in order to make your point? You're responding to this:

So, you believe that private organizations should not be interfered with as they decide who our 2 choices for POTUS will be?

Now where do I say that we have two choices by law?

Republicans can't read. That was a rebuttal argument, I didn't say you did say that. Think about it

 

[cereal_killer]

False. This has nothing to do with campaigning. This is a private organization gaming the outcome of the nominating process by setting arbitrary rules, or changing them year to year to ensure they get an approved nominee.

the party always votes its own rules... because it's a party nomination.

the fact that trump doesn't believe rules apply to him is the larger problem. and one would think, were he a serious candidate, he'd have taken it seriously and had the people around him to work the delegates.

so much for him being prepared on day one.

But those rules change from year to year with the express purpose of gaming the system toward a particular candidate.

The minimum 8 state wins to be nominated? That was a new rule instituted in 2012 to hurt Ron Paul.

As for Drumpf, so much for the Art of the Deal, and his boasts of working the fine print to his advantage. He's being revealed as a fraud.

Cryin Donald's problem isn't that the rules are against him, it's that he's not winning a majority. He's running 37%

Forget Trump..its the fucking system. Its bunk. I don't care who's running, the rules need to be changed to reflect the will of the American people. Oh wait.....we can't have that.

If the issue isn't Cryin Donald, why now? Why not last summer or the last decades when the same process was in place?

And my point was that if Trump were getting a majority of the votes, he'd be the nominee. Republicans have no candidate getting more than just over a third of the votes. No kidding that's going to be a mess to sort out. Trump has to stop cryin and learn the process. He's the dumbest politician since Gore thought we elect Presidents with a popular vote and he didn't learn the electoral college system

Because Trump and Sanders have exposed the rigged system by virtue of their huge popularity. A lot of Trump and Sanders supporters are watching these elections very closely and when 2 + 2 doesn't add up they begin to question it.

I think a lot of voters figured "Well my man/woman won, lets keep on rolling into the nomination!" Did voters really know that if a candidate handily won a state he could still come away with less delegates? Did they know there would be no election in some states and somebody else would be choosing delegates to cast votes for the candidate the party liked or perhaps thwart someone they didn't like? Did they know about super delegates? Call it ignorance or their own stupidity but that doesn't change the fact that the SYSTEM is rigged. Peoples votes really don't count except to say "I voted!" I'm talking on both sides here, not just Republican. Sanders is getting fucked by the system and Trump will beat the system by shear numbers.

I always knew the system was bullshit and our votes did not count, but a lot of people believed in it. Trump will get the nomination so thats not where a lot of the anger comes from. The anger is directed at a rigged system. Let candidates win delegates via a system that reflects what the AMERICAN PEOPLE want not what the party wants. Otherwise why have elections? For the horse and pony show that it is? No thanks. I say our votes should count. Thats supposed to be the purpose of elections right?

 

[kaz]

Our awful government is the result of that narrow thinking.

Conservatives get elected, work their hardest to destroy government institutions and the public's faith, then run again complaining that government is bad and they're the only ones who can fix it.

Rinse, repeat.

Our government keeps getting bigger and, say what homeboy? How is your response supposed to make sense that the problem is anyone is destroying government institutions? OMG, we can't live without more government, who will take care of us??? So, what institutions are in your mind possibly getting smaller?

 

[Synthaholic]

And even if it did happen, so you have a wall in one spot for 24-48 miles, or you have a thousand mile wall they could cross anywhere permanently ...

This sounds good to you? Really?

I'm for securing the border, but a wall is retarded. Especially after seeing how El Chappo had a tunnel dug, what...2-3 miles long, completely undetected?

My solution to border control is twofold:

#1 - relocate military bases in interior Red states like Idaho, Kansas, Utah to the Texas border and they can patrol the border.

#2 - Pass a law that has steep fines for any company hiring an illegal. Have mandatory minimum prison sentences for the most egregious offenders. (Why haven't Republicans already passed one? The answer is that they want that cheap labor, and all this panic over illegals is purely political, for their racist, dumbass base.)

 

[kaz]

No Arnold, I think that the internal workings of the parties aren't a government agency. How stupid are you?

So, you believe that private organizations should not be interfered with as they decide who our 2 choices for POTUS will be?

They are not our 2 choices by law. They are our two choices because most voters are too stupid and gullible to think beyond the two crappy choices. Our awful government is the result of that narrow thinking. That the crappy government that is run by the result of the stupid voters is going to go back and fix the voters so they elect better candidates and we get better government is categorically ridiculous

Is the LP a private organization like the RP and DP? How about the Greens? How about the Reform Party? Or the Constitution Party?

I'm not clear what you're asking me. Your literal question answer is yes, but point?

I thought you were arguing that if I don't like the private entities RNC and DNC manipulating the process to get their desired result, I can always vote for a third Party. I'm saying that they are all private entities also, are they not?

You're mixing too many issues together and you're not smart enough or open minded enough to waste the time separating them back out

 

[kaz]

No, not with modern technology. I'm thinking they're smart enough to put in sensors and surveillance.

Then why not put that in, and forget the wall?

Because duh. This does actually sound good to you, doesn't it?

 

[Synthaholic]

Sorry, but the people DO get to vote for their representatives in government. How people are presented to campaign to BE that representative is something else entirely, and does not need government interference.

Synthaholic I've been around the block with Cecilie1200. She doesn't believe Americans have any right to vote for their representatives in Government if the parties don't deem it necessary. thanatos144 echo's this sentiment as well.

They wish to keep the system where the parties select the nominee not the American people. If you wish to attack this system where hundred of thousands of voters are being disenfranchised then you are a whiner. In other words take a good ass reaming and shut up, these are the rules.

I think I need a scorecard to remind me who the Party Hacks are!

Put your faith in Reince Preibus!!!!

I don't believe that's a correct characterization of what she said.

She's advocating private organizations having control over a fundamental Constitutional right.

but the parties have the right to have their own representative in accordance with their own rules.

if one doesn't like that, they should run third party. it has zero to do with voting rights.

Congress should set the same minimum rules for both (all) Parties and the candidate with the most votes from each Party should get their respective nomination. This is a Constitutional right.

As I said earlier, if private organizations were empowered to decide who gets a gun or not, conservative's heads would explode. I don't put the 2nd as more important than the right to vote - and have your vote counted!

 

[kaz]

the party always votes its own rules... because it's a party nomination.

the fact that trump doesn't believe rules apply to him is the larger problem. and one would think, were he a serious candidate, he'd have taken it seriously and had the people around him to work the delegates.

so much for him being prepared on day one.

But those rules change from year to year with the express purpose of gaming the system toward a particular candidate.

The minimum 8 state wins to be nominated? That was a new rule instituted in 2012 to hurt Ron Paul.

As for Drumpf, so much for the Art of the Deal, and his boasts of working the fine print to his advantage. He's being revealed as a fraud.

Cryin Donald's problem isn't that the rules are against him, it's that he's not winning a majority. He's running 37%

Forget Trump..its the fucking system. Its bunk. I don't care who's running, the rules need to be changed to reflect the will of the American people. Oh wait.....we can't have that.

If the issue isn't Cryin Donald, why now? Why not last summer or the last decades when the same process was in place?

And my point was that if Trump were getting a majority of the votes, he'd be the nominee. Republicans have no candidate getting more than just over a third of the votes. No kidding that's going to be a mess to sort out. Trump has to stop cryin and learn the process. He's the dumbest politician since Gore thought we elect Presidents with a popular vote and he didn't learn the electoral college system

Because Trump and Sanders have exposed the rigged system by virtue of their huge popularity. A lot of Trump and Sanders supporters are watching these elections very closely and when 2 + 2 doesn't add up they begin to question it.

I think a lot of voters figured "Well my man/woman won, lets keep on rolling into the nomination!" Did voters really know that if a candidate handily won a state he could still come away with less delegates? Did they know there would be no election in some states and somebody else would be choosing delegates to cast votes for the candidate the party liked or perhaps thwart someone they didn't like? Did they know about super delegates? Call it ignorance or their own stupidity but that doesn't change the fact that the SYSTEM is rigged. Peoples votes really don't count except to say "I voted!" I'm talking on both sides here, not just Republican. Sanders is getting fucked by the system and Trump will beat the system by shear numbers.

I always knew the system was bullshit and our votes did not count, but a lot of people believed in it. Trump will get the nomination so thats not where a lot of the anger comes from. The anger is directed at a rigged system. Let candidates win delegates via a system that reflects what the AMERICAN PEOPLE want not what the party wants. Otherwise why have elections? For the horse and pony show that it is? No thanks. I say our votes should count. Thats supposed to be the purpose of elections right?

Fair enough on your point. Though it's going to get lost at the moment with the Cryin Donald timing. Trump didn't start his whine until he lost the State and he's focused on only that State when he's benefited from rules in other States to turn a 37% voter support into 45% of the delegates

 

[Synthaholic]

As for the religious right controlling the party canard, clearly from the issues, that's not happening. No one is running on social issues.

Funny, I just heard Ted Cruz deliver a long spiel on how he's going to protect their religious liberty.

In fact, Cruz mostly talks about social issues. I've yet to hear him discuss the economy, or foreign policy, or education, or social security, or Medicare, or any solutions he has for anything, in detail.

 

[kaz]

And even if it did happen, so you have a wall in one spot for 24-48 miles, or you have a thousand mile wall they could cross anywhere permanently ...

This sounds good to you? Really?

I'm for securing the border, but a wall is retarded. Especially after seeing how El Chappo had a tunnel dug, what...2-3 miles long, completely undetected?

My solution to border control is twofold:

#1 - relocate military bases in interior Red states like Idaho, Kansas, Utah to the Texas border and they can patrol the border.

#2 - Pass a law that has steep fines for any company hiring an illegal. Have mandatory minimum prison sentences for the most egregious offenders. (Why haven't Republicans already passed one? The answer is that they want that cheap labor, and all this panic over illegals is purely political, for their racist, dumbass base.)

Your solution is to keep importing voters

 

[Synthaholic]

True, and sadly he'd still be an improvement over the last eight years.

I'll never understand the delusional conservative mind. By almost every measure Obama has improved American life from the day he took office.

Stagnant wages and increasing debt in a recovery normally would doom anyone as a one termer, but the gop has alienated a lot of people ... generally on social issues.

What have Republicans done on social issues?

Campaigned on them, then when they win they go back to their #1 priority: greed and holding onto power.

 

[kaz]

As for the religious right controlling the party canard, clearly from the issues, that's not happening. No one is running on social issues.

Funny, I just heard Ted Cruz deliver a long spiel on how he's going to protect their religious liberty.

In fact, Cruz mostly talks about social issues. I've yet to hear him discuss the economy, or foreign policy, or education, or social security, or Medicare, or any solutions he has for anything, in detail.

Swish. First you're full of shit. Cruz talks mostly about the economy. Second military. Third social. That may vary based on the crowd, but I listen to him and you listen to what MS-NBC says about him.

And the question is WHAT IS HE DOING FOR THEM? Can you hear me now? What is he offering them? He's following the Reagan approach so far. Talk about his personal social conservatism, but do nothing for them. Here's a tip. Rachel, Ed, Al and Chris are Democrat hacks. Stop parroting what they say about their political enemies

 

[Synthaholic]

False. This has nothing to do with campaigning. This is a private organization gaming the outcome of the nominating process by setting arbitrary rules, or changing them year to year to ensure they get an approved nominee.

the party always votes its own rules... because it's a party nomination.

the fact that trump doesn't believe rules apply to him is the larger problem. and one would think, were he a serious candidate, he'd have taken it seriously and had the people around him to work the delegates.

so much for him being prepared on day one.

But those rules change from year to year with the express purpose of gaming the system toward a particular candidate.

The minimum 8 state wins to be nominated? That was a new rule instituted in 2012 to hurt Ron Paul.

As for Drumpf, so much for the Art of the Deal, and his boasts of working the fine print to his advantage. He's being revealed as a fraud.

Cryin Donald's problem isn't that the rules are against him, it's that he's not winning a majority. He's running 37%

Didn't he win Louisiana but didn't get any of the delegates, which went to Cruz?

Explain how this is what the Founders had in mind, please.

Gawd, you right wingers are dumb. The founders didn't lay out the process for parties to pick their nominees, they laid out the process for the candidates to get elected President

First of all, you know full well that I'm not a Right-Winger.

The Founders DID make voting a Constitutional right. And they did so with the intent that those votes actual mean something, and aren't just a distraction while the powers that be do whatever they want.

It's interesting that whenever I make a point that you cannot refute, you just change my argument.

 

[kaz]

True, and sadly he'd still be an improvement over the last eight years.

I'll never understand the delusional conservative mind. By almost every measure Obama has improved American life from the day he took office.

Stagnant wages and increasing debt in a recovery normally would doom anyone as a one termer, but the gop has alienated a lot of people ... generally on social issues.

What have Republicans done on social issues?

Campaigned on them, then when they win they go back to their #1 priority: greed and holding onto power.

WTF? Do you even know what social issues are? The question is, "What have Republicans done on social issues?"

Holding onto power is something all politicians try to do, it isn't a social issue. And "greed" is an economic issue, do you know what the word means? It means wanting money. You know, like you want money you didn't earn. That's greed. It's not a social issue

 

[cereal_killer]

Imagine in the NFL where the parties set the rules.

"Ladies and Gentlemen, the final score of Superbowl 51 is Carolina 17, Pittsburgh 24! the Winner of Superbowl 51 is.........................Carolina!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

"What?!!!!! You can't rob us like that?!!!"

"It's in the rules, you've should have read them. It says that the winner must have more first downs in the 1st and 3rd quarter, more than 50% pass completion rate, one first round draft pick in the lineup and no more than 3 turnovers.....no make that 4...we just changed that at halftime"

 

[kaz]

First of all, you know full well that I'm not a Right-Winger

You're the one who wants to play the playground game, no you're the right winger. At some point, doesn't even your eight year old brain get tired of it? I'm a libertarian, moron. Name an issue where I have a position that is right wing that isn't libertarian

The Founders DID make voting a Constitutional right. And they did so with the intent that those votes actual mean something, and aren't just a distraction while the powers that be do whatever they want.

It's interesting that whenever I make a point that you cannot refute, you just change my argument.

The founding fathers specified how to vote in Federal Elections. They did not specify how private organizations should vote. It's funny, every time I make a point you can't refute, you show it's because you didn't understand it

 

[kaz]

Imagine in the NFL where the parties set the rules.

"Ladies and Gentlemen, the final score of Superbowl 51 is Carolina 17, Pittsburgh 24! the Winner of Superbowl 51 is.........................Carolina!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

"What?!!!!! You can't rob us like that?!!!"

"It's in the rules, you've should have read them. It says that the winner must have more first downs in the 1st and 3rd quarter, more than 50% pass completion rate, one first round draft pick in the lineup and no more than 3 turnovers.....no make that 4...we just changed that at halftime"

Poor analogy. The score of the Superbowl is more appropriately the election, not the nominating process. A better analogy would be the quarterback of the Panthers having a hissy fit because he got more first downs in practice and the coach went with a different quarterback. Let's say his name is Donald, a good nickname for him would be Cryin Donald

 

[jillian]

Sorry, but the people DO get to vote for their representatives in government. How people are presented to campaign to BE that representative is something else entirely, and does not need government interference.

False. This has nothing to do with campaigning. This is a private organization gaming the outcome of the nominating process by setting arbitrary rules, or changing them year to year to ensure they get an approved nominee.

the party always votes its own rules... because it's a party nomination.

the fact that trump doesn't believe rules apply to him is the larger problem. and one would think, were he a serious candidate, he'd have taken it seriously and had the people around him to work the delegates.

so much for him being prepared on day one.

But those rules change from year to year with the express purpose of gaming the system toward a particular candidate.

The minimum 8 state wins to be nominated? That was a new rule instituted in 2012 to hurt Ron Paul.

As for Drumpf, so much for the Art of the Deal, and his boasts of working the fine print to his advantage. He's being revealed as a fraud.

Cryin Donald's problem isn't that the rules are against him, it's that he's not winning a majority. He's running 37%

Forget Trump..its the fucking system. Its bunk. I don't care who's running, the rules need to be changed to reflect the will of the American people. Oh wait.....we can't have that.

you are aware the founders wanted only white male landed gentry to vote, right?

 

[Synthaholic]

True, and sadly he'd still be an improvement over the last eight years.

I'll never understand the delusional conservative mind. By almost every measure Obama has improved American life from the day he took office.

Stagnant wages and increasing debt in a recovery normally would doom anyone as a one termer, but the gop has alienated a lot of people ... generally on social issues.

Wages have been stagnant since Reagan became president. Funny how no one on the right bitched in 2004 that Bush hadn't raised wages, therefore he shouldn't be re-elected.

Conservatives only come up with these bullshit issues when a Democrat is POTUS.

As for the debt, Republicans have had iron fist control over the House since 2011, and the House controls all money. And that's another issue conservatives only care about when a Democrat is POTUS.

Wow, you're not old enough to remember the 2004 election? How old are you? Conservatives supported W because they supported the war. He was criticized even by Rush Limbaugh and your favorite pom pom Republican Hannity for pretty much everything else, but they kept saying we need to support him because the war on terror and winning in Iraq and Afghanistan is too important.

Republicans are your party, don't you even pay attention to your own candidates and favorite hate radio hosts?

They supported the war but they also overwhelmingly supported the massive tax cuts for the rich which exploded the debt. They also supported Bush's stimulus in 2002. No conservatives bitched about the debt until Obama was elected, and then all of a sudden - TEA PARTY! Drummed up and astroturfed by Dick Armey and the Kochs, with massive help from FOXNEWS.

And where the fuck do you get the idea that the Republican Party is my Party?

I'm one of the biggest Liberals on this board. I've been sporting a mocking avatar of Lyin' Ryan for years.

 

[jillian]

Synthaholic I've been around the block with Cecilie1200. She doesn't believe Americans have any right to vote for their representatives in Government if the parties don't deem it necessary. thanatos144 echo's this sentiment as well.

They wish to keep the system where the parties select the nominee not the American people. If you wish to attack this system where hundred of thousands of voters are being disenfranchised then you are a whiner. In other words take a good ass reaming and shut up, these are the rules.

I think I need a scorecard to remind me who the Party Hacks are!

Put your faith in Reince Preibus!!!!

I don't believe that's a correct characterization of what she said.

She's advocating private organizations having control over a fundamental Constitutional right.

but the parties have the right to have their own representative in accordance with their own rules.

if one doesn't like that, they should run third party. it has zero to do with voting rights.

Congress should set the same minimum rules for both (all) Parties and the candidate with the most votes from each Party should get their respective nomination. This is a Constitutional right.

As I said earlier, if private organizations were empowered to decide who gets a gun or not, conservative's heads would explode. I don't put the 2nd as more important than the right to vote - and have your vote counted!

there is no constitutional right to choose the party's nominee

where in the constitution do you believe it confers the "right" to vote?