Delegates....a rigged system?

[Synthaholic]

Would you be OK with a private organization setting rules on who could own a gun?

I am fine with private organizations setting rules on who could bring a gun onto premises owned by the organization and what kind of guns they could bring.

Not what I asked. Why do you wingnuts have such problems being honest?

But please continue to play with yourself.

 

[hadit]

hy should I use the power of the government to force parties to nominate any certain person?

Not my argument, but please continue playing with yourself.

By saying parties should not be private instituations, you are saying you want government to control the parties, and ultimately who they nominate. Perhaps you didn't realize that's what you're saying.

 

[kaz]

The founding fathers specified how to vote in Federal Elections. They did not specify how private organizations should vote.

Private organizations can't vote, dope.

And corporations aren't people, either.

What does that have to do with anything?

Just answering your post with a fact: you said "They did not specify how private organizations should vote."

What is the relevance of those "facts?" Are you thinking the people who comprise political parties and corporations lose their Constitutional rights because they organized?

The relevance is proving you wrong.

I'm thinking that private organizations should not be in charge of a Constitutional right.

I asked earlier, but you and every other Right-Winger dodged:

Would you be OK with a private organization setting rules on who could own a gun?

What Constitutional right are any private organizations in charge of? The parties don't set the rules for the general elections, the legislature does. What do you even think you're talking about?

As for, "Would you be OK with a private organization setting rules on who could own a gun?" I dodged nothing. It's not a relevant point any more than voting is. Private organizations don't control voting, they control selecting who their candidate will be who will be voted on.

 

[hadit]

Would you be OK with a private organization setting rules on who could own a gun?

I am fine with private organizations setting rules on who could bring a gun onto premises owned by the organization and what kind of guns they could bring.

Not what I asked. Why do you wingnuts have such problems being honest?

But please continue to play with yourself.

I was giving you a nuanced answer, because conservatives understand nuance and don't see the world as black and white, unlike some.

Basically, your argument boils down to, "You're not being fair, because you won't nominate the way I think you should, so I want the government to force you to do it the way I want you to".

 

[kaz]

Tax cuts trigger economic activity that offsets the decreased tax revenue.

That's been proven false.

Well, that's true in the sense that leftist lawyers tell you they know more economics than economists do and you believe them.

It's not true if you believe empirical data.

Tom-ay-to, tom-ah-to

Show me the empirical data that proves Bush's tax cuts were beneficial to the U.S. economy.

I don't take homework assignments from nit wits. You chose a particular tax cut I didn't name. I am referring to the extensive research that has been done by the field of economics.

As for W, it was overall beneficial, but he did dilute the benefit by making the tax code more complex, complexity drives inefficiency. He also had a massive Social Security and Medicare tax increase. Like everything, W did almost nothing right and then when he did he screwed it up

 

[Synthaholic]

"What are you talking about? What social issues have Republicans passed?"

I'm sorry. I keep saying you are constantly mis reading my posts so I had to read this one again because I don't want to accuse you of being stupid without evidence. I didn't find a single word or group of words within the reply that states "social issues the republicans have passed". You are close though as they have ATTEMPTED to pass numerous pieces of legislation with versions of their moral agenda embedded within. That is one of their favorite tricks. They pretend to be addressing a valid need and almost without fail poison the bill with a stupid religist amendment that side rails the legislation. If you do not know what I am referring to you are as dense as you are repetitive.

OK then, smart ass. What social legislation have they "attempted" to pass.

And I'm repetitive because you are evading the question

Life at Conception Act (2013 - H.R. 1091)

So religious control the Republican party and focus all that power on abortion skirmishes. There you have it, my point exactly

No, your point was that social conservatives have not gotten Republicans to do anything on their behalf in Congress.

I proved you wrong with a 10 second search for the link.

I guess "libertarians" don't admit when they are wrong.

I see, so in the discussion about your claim religious control the Republican party, you think that minor abortion skirmishes are what they have chosen to do with all that power. Having made your point, I have a problem admitting I'm wrong.

Actually, you do. Obviously they don't control the Republican party, you just like the talking point

You asked for an example, I gave you one.

I could give you many more. Want to see their efforts on marriage equality, or religious liberty, prayer in schools, or ten commandments in public buildings, or nativity scenes on public property, or . . . or are you ready to admit you are wrong?

 

[kaz]

Just because you monitor doesn't help you chase down thousands of people across a thousand miles.

U.S. Army vehicles vs. illegals traveling on foot or piled into a truck.

Ooh, that's a tough one! So evenly matched!

Someone gets a big gun and blasts a hole in one spot and government converges there or they chase thousands of people individually across a thousand miles. And you don't get the difference, it's the same to you. LOL. You're not a smart boy. Here's a ball, look it's bouncy ...

We can successfully monitor and enforce a no-fly zone across all of Iraq all the way from Incirlik, Türkiye but the military is incompetent when it comes to a no-walk zone in Texas?

Yes, obviously given their record. OK, I sit at one end of a room with no furniture and a hardwood floor and you at the other. Your goal it to prevent balls I roll from hitting the other wall. Do you want option a or option b?

a) I roll an occasional bowling ball

b) I take the material and weight of the bowling balls would roll and create thousands of marbles that have the same total volume and weight at the bowling balls. Put them in a bucket, and fling them across the floor.

You really are not bright. Your argument actually sounds good to you?

 

[Synthaholic]

By saying parties should not be private instituations, you are saying you want government to control the parties

Nope.

Government sets rules on whether a company can dump their toxic waste into a river. Does that mean government is "controlling" that company?

 

[kaz]

OK then, smart ass. What social legislation have they "attempted" to pass.

And I'm repetitive because you are evading the question

Life at Conception Act (2013 - H.R. 1091)

So religious control the Republican party and focus all that power on abortion skirmishes. There you have it, my point exactly

No, your point was that social conservatives have not gotten Republicans to do anything on their behalf in Congress.

I proved you wrong with a 10 second search for the link.

I guess "libertarians" don't admit when they are wrong.

I see, so in the discussion about your claim religious control the Republican party, you think that minor abortion skirmishes are what they have chosen to do with all that power. Having made your point, I have a problem admitting I'm wrong.

Actually, you do. Obviously they don't control the Republican party, you just like the talking point

You asked for an example, I gave you one.

I could give you many more. Want to see their efforts on marriage equality, or religious liberty, prayer in schools, or ten commandments in public buildings, or nativity scenes on public property, or . . . or are you ready to admit you are wrong?

So your proof the religious right is controlling the Republican party is that they're opposing you people moving to the left. With "marriage equality," we didn't have gay marriage until you people created it illegally through the courts. That isn't the Republicans moving to the right, it's you moving to the left. Guys whipping out their dick in bathrooms with 12 year old girls is you moving to the left. Taking the ten commandments off of walls is you moving to the left. If you want to make the case you're controlled by anti-religious fanatics, that you can support. Well, unless they are Muslim ...

 

[Synthaholic]

Private organizations can't vote, dope.

And corporations aren't people, either.

What does that have to do with anything?

Just answering your post with a fact: you said "They did not specify how private organizations should vote."

What is the relevance of those "facts?" Are you thinking the people who comprise political parties and corporations lose their Constitutional rights because they organized?

The relevance is proving you wrong.

I'm thinking that private organizations should not be in charge of a Constitutional right.

I asked earlier, but you and every other Right-Winger dodged:

Would you be OK with a private organization setting rules on who could own a gun?

What Constitutional right are any private organizations in charge of? The parties don't set the rules for the general elections, the legislature does. What do you even think you're talking about?

As for, "Would you be OK with a private organization setting rules on who could own a gun?" I dodged nothing. It's not a relevant point any more than voting is. Private organizations don't control voting, they control selecting who their candidate will be who will be voted on.

OK, you want to act like a little bitch and parse every word, so I'll re-phrase:

Would you be OK with a private organization setting rules on which gun you can purchase?

 

[SwimExpert]

Of course it's rigged, but the salient point is that it's always been that way, and for Trump or Bernie supporters to complain about it now is a bit too late, since both candidates entered the race with the full knowledge of what they were getting into. The party power structure knows which candidate they want, and will manipulate the process to push for that candidate.

So, a convention setting its own rules is rigged?

You know, if you go back a few years. Go all the way to a small little town called Philadelphia. There was another convention there once upon a time. Delegates from all the states joined in. They had some minor business to attend to. And you know what was one of the first things they did? They set their own rules.

Just imagine if they had somehow been bound to follow rules set by England. Now THAT would have been a rigged system.

 

[Synthaholic]

I don't take homework assignments from nit wits.

No, you just make statements that you are unable to back up.

 

[kaz]

Private organizations can't vote, dope.

And corporations aren't people, either.

What does that have to do with anything?

Just answering your post with a fact: you said "They did not specify how private organizations should vote."

What is the relevance of those "facts?" Are you thinking the people who comprise political parties and corporations lose their Constitutional rights because they organized?

The relevance is proving you wrong.

I'm thinking that private organizations should not be in charge of a Constitutional right.

I asked earlier, but you and every other Right-Winger dodged:

Would you be OK with a private organization setting rules on who could own a gun?

I am fine with private organizations setting rules on who could bring a gun onto premises owned by the organization and what kind of guns they could bring. The same is true for political parties. They are determining who will be their standard bearer in the general election. Note that nothing is stopping those who do not get nominated from going to a different party that will nominate them, or from running completely independently. You are NOT forced to vote for any candidate from any political party. You can vote for yourself if you want. You do know that, don't you?

Thinking he knows anything is risky business. He still thinks a party nominating a candidate is a general election which can be controlled by government

 

[Synthaholic]

Just because you monitor doesn't help you chase down thousands of people across a thousand miles.

U.S. Army vehicles vs. illegals traveling on foot or piled into a truck.

Ooh, that's a tough one! So evenly matched!

Someone gets a big gun and blasts a hole in one spot and government converges there or they chase thousands of people individually across a thousand miles. And you don't get the difference, it's the same to you. LOL. You're not a smart boy. Here's a ball, look it's bouncy ...

We can successfully monitor and enforce a no-fly zone across all of Iraq all the way from Incirlik, Türkiye but the military is incompetent when it comes to a no-walk zone in Texas?

Yes, obviously given their record. OK, I sit at one end of a room with no furniture and a hardwood floor and you at the other. Your goal it to prevent balls I roll from hitting the other wall. Do you want option a or option b?

a) I roll an occasional bowling ball

b) I take the material and weight of the bowling balls would roll and create thousands of marbles that have the same total volume and weight at the bowling balls. Put them in a bucket, and fling them across the floor.

You really are not bright. Your argument actually sounds good to you?

You're flailing. Badly.

The U.S. Army and Air Force could easily monitor the border if we moved enough of them there from their useless current locations in Utah, Kansas, and other interior locations that are only there for make-work and to spread the Defense money around to all the states in order to make them dependent upon it.

 

[hadit]

By saying parties should not be private instituations, you are saying you want government to control the parties

Nope.

Government sets rules on whether a company can dump their toxic waste into a river. Does that mean government is "controlling" that company?

Again, your argument boils down to a very simple idea. You don't like the way parties nominate their candidates and you want the government to force them to do it the way you want them to.

A political party is nothing more than a group of citizens pooling their resources to promote a political agenda and to nominate for office candidates that will further that agenda. The government does not need to be involved.

 

[Synthaholic]

Life at Conception Act (2013 - H.R. 1091)

So religious control the Republican party and focus all that power on abortion skirmishes. There you have it, my point exactly

No, your point was that social conservatives have not gotten Republicans to do anything on their behalf in Congress.

I proved you wrong with a 10 second search for the link.

I guess "libertarians" don't admit when they are wrong.

I see, so in the discussion about your claim religious control the Republican party, you think that minor abortion skirmishes are what they have chosen to do with all that power. Having made your point, I have a problem admitting I'm wrong.

Actually, you do. Obviously they don't control the Republican party, you just like the talking point

You asked for an example, I gave you one.

I could give you many more. Want to see their efforts on marriage equality, or religious liberty, prayer in schools, or ten commandments in public buildings, or nativity scenes on public property, or . . . or are you ready to admit you are wrong?

So your proof the religious right is controlling the Republican party is that they're opposing you people moving to the left. With "marriage equality," we didn't have gay marriage until you people created it illegally through the courts. That isn't the Republicans moving to the right, it's you moving to the left. Guys whipping out their dick in bathrooms with 12 year old girls is you moving to the left. Taking the ten commandments off of walls is you moving to the left. If you want to make the case you're controlled by anti-religious fanatics, that you can support. Well, unless they are Muslim ...

This post perfectly illustrates that you are a Cafeteria Constitutionalist.

You asked for an example, and I gave you multiple examples. Now you want to claim it's the Left's fault that you're wrong.

 

[Synthaholic]

By saying parties should not be private instituations, you are saying you want government to control the parties

Nope.

Government sets rules on whether a company can dump their toxic waste into a river. Does that mean government is "controlling" that company?

Again, your argument boils down to a very simple idea. You don't like the way parties nominate their candidates and you want the government to force them to do it the way you want them to.

A political party is nothing more than a group of citizens pooling their resources to promote a political agenda and to nominate for office candidates that will further that agenda. The government does not need to be involved.

Can't answer my question?

I'm SHOCKED!

 

[kaz]

What does that have to do with anything?

Just answering your post with a fact: you said "They did not specify how private organizations should vote."

What is the relevance of those "facts?" Are you thinking the people who comprise political parties and corporations lose their Constitutional rights because they organized?

The relevance is proving you wrong.

I'm thinking that private organizations should not be in charge of a Constitutional right.

I asked earlier, but you and every other Right-Winger dodged:

Would you be OK with a private organization setting rules on who could own a gun?

What Constitutional right are any private organizations in charge of? The parties don't set the rules for the general elections, the legislature does. What do you even think you're talking about?

As for, "Would you be OK with a private organization setting rules on who could own a gun?" I dodged nothing. It's not a relevant point any more than voting is. Private organizations don't control voting, they control selecting who their candidate will be who will be voted on.

OK, you want to act like a little bitch and parse every word, so I'll re-phrase:

Would you be OK with a private organization setting rules on which gun you can purchase?

Terrible analogy. Anyone can run in the election. Here is the analogous question to what I am arguing:

Would you be OK with a private business deciding which gun you can purchase from them?

The parties are not determining other candidates, only their own. Just like a gun shop. Sure, they can decide what they are selling. And just like the parties, I don't like it, I can find another gun shop.

You really aren't willing to solve anything you can get government to do for you, are you?

 

[hadit]

Of course it's rigged, but the salient point is that it's always been that way, and for Trump or Bernie supporters to complain about it now is a bit too late, since both candidates entered the race with the full knowledge of what they were getting into. The party power structure knows which candidate they want, and will manipulate the process to push for that candidate.

So, a convention setting its own rules is rigged?

You know, if you go back a few years. Go all the way to a small little town called Philadelphia. There was another convention there once upon a time. Delegates from all the states joined in. They had some minor business to attend to. And you know what was one of the first things they did? They set their own rules.

Just imagine if they had somehow been bound to follow rules set by England. Now THAT would have been a rigged system.

Think about it. They wait until the convention to set the rules. This is AFTER months of endless debates, straw polls, caucuses, primary votes, and delegate selections. It's rigged in the sense that the party can simply set rules to knock a candidate down or lift one up, REGARDLESS of their performance before that point. That convention you reference was not preceded by months of campaigning based on a previous set of rules, unlike this case.

 

[kaz]

I don't take homework assignments from nit wits.

No, you just make statements that you are unable to back up.

As I pointed out in the rest of the post you cut, I didn't say anything about W's tax cuts. You brought it up. Stop being a moron