Delegates....a rigged system?

[Iceweasel]

How would that translate to government usurping control?

Did you just ask me how Congress dictating rules for private organizations is the government usurping control? Seriously?

You are continuously running with the political parties are like private businesses like grocery chains meme. That isn't what we are discussing. The political parties are deeply involved in government, you are either propagandizing or stuck on stupid.

They're no more "deeply involved" with the government than any group of citizens attempting to influence the policies of the government that affect their lives. They're private organizations. Being organized to affect public policy rather than organized to generate income changes that not in the slightest. There is no amount of "Ehrmagerd, they want to get a candidate elected, that means they're GOVERNMENT!" that will make that true.

They aren't doing anything that you aren't doing, really, except they're working harder at it, spending more money on it, and being more effective at it.

I'm on par with the Republican and Democratic national parties? You are living in denial, that must be your problem.

The entire election process on local, state and federal government is run through them. How does that not speak to you?

Who said "on par"? Where are those words in my post? Oh, they aren't there? Then I will assume that this is your newfound leftist debate style, which you should be SO proud of having adopted.

Let me repeat myself a little slower, since while adopting leftspeak, you apparently also reduced your IQ by 50 points to match theirs (not to mention took on their sense of shame). They are doing the same thing you are doing, ie. attempting to influence public policy. They are just spending more time, effort, and money than you are, and thus being more effective.

So OBVIOUSLY, LeftWeasel, I said EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of you being on any "par" with anyone. I said, "Same goals, different effort, different result".

The "entire election process" is not run through the parties. The party operations are run through the parties. I dunno about where you live - and clearly, YOU don't know about where you live either, if you've drunk so much Trump-Aid that you think elections are run by political parties - but where I live, the elections are run by the Arizona Secretary of State's office and the various county recorders' offices. I suspect wherever you live has similar GOVERNMENT offices that handle GOVERNMENT functions, and I'm sure they could probably run an intervention for you and explain the whole "difference between government and private organizations" thing for you.

"They aren't doing anything that you aren't doing ..."
Those are your words, not mine. I'm not on par with the political parties. They have quite a bit more influence that I do. Insulting people is all you have. Your dismissal of the importance the parties play because they are privately owned is your problem, not mine. I don't need to dismiss anything. Sure, government agencies print up the pamphlets, count the votes, etc. but it all about who the party is backing. The higher up, the more it matters.

Your hatred and intolerance for anyone that doesn't goose step behind your anti-Trump hysteria is amusing to read. Like it's going to matter!

 

[Iceweasel]

Are you unable to comprehend a simple concept? I want every American (registered voter) to vote and have their vote counted. I give ZERO fucks about the party's.

The party's have no business thwarting the will of the American people. Period..........."by" "for" and "of". You're perfectly happy getting bent over and having the party insert their 12" dick into your ass, most Americans aren't.

This is a primary. Not a general. Why does that confuse you so much?

Why have debates, why have voting, why have primaries? Primary or General, Americans should be allowed to vote and have that vote counted. Why does that confuse you so much?

To gauge and influence public opinion. Why does it confuse YOU that opinions aren't, and have no right to be, binding on anyone?

Seriously?

Your statement is sheer lunacy!

It's sheer lunacy that they have voting in primaries to find out what people want? You're bitching and moaning because of the supposed sacredness of "the will of the people" expressed in those non-binding votes, which should immediately be put under the control of the government because they're what people want, and NOW it's "sheer lunacy" that they're about finding out what people want?

The only lunacy about my statement is that I bothered to make it to you as though you had two functioning brain cells in the same area of your skull.

You can throw a hissy fit all you want but the fact is a lot of people are made aware in this election cycle of just how corrupt the delegation process is, left and right. It explains why the right has been saddled with such milktoast candidates as Dole, McCain, Romney. The conservatives can't get enthused and the middle can't be bothered. Yet, the party heads don't care because they benefit just the same.

Big business and government scratching each others' backs is what makes politics go 'round and many are sick of it and want the people to pick their representatives, not party heads. Sorry if it bothers you.

 

[kaz]

Yep. Government doesn't produce anything. So net it can't grow the economy. All it does is shrink it by what it wastes

I hope that is a sarcastic post. Repairing and improving the infrastructure, maintaining the military payroll and making the purchases necessary to supply and re-supply are just a few aspects of how government adds to the economy.

Hold up there. It does none of those things without taking or borrowing money. That isn't adding to the economy. In fact, the people could have private companies do it cheaper, which they do anyway but we have to funnel the money through government meat hooks to get to them.

I think it is foolish to always believe that "cheaper" is better. Bush drastically cut back on the financial regulators. How did THAT savings work out for ours and the world's economies?

Bush sucked and that was stupid. But he CONTINUED a Clinton policy, he didn't create it. My God, you are a partisan boot licking Democrat, the people who fucked you and your family. How sad is that?

Very sad.

So seriously, you don't know that the subprime lending policies and deregulation of the financial industry were both Clinton policies? Wow, you really do drink the Democrat kool-aid, it's not like those were unknown agendas of his

 

[kaz]

Yep. Government doesn't produce anything. So net it can't grow the economy. All it does is shrink it by what it wastes

I hope that is a sarcastic post. Repairing and improving the infrastructure, maintaining the military payroll and making the purchases necessary to supply and re-supply are just a few aspects of how government adds to the economy.

Hold up there. It does none of those things without taking or borrowing money. That isn't adding to the economy. In fact, the people could have private companies do it cheaper, which they do anyway but we have to funnel the money through government meat hooks to get to them.

Name the company that's going to take on the cost of extending an interstate, or building a new bridge between Lexington and Cincinnati.

The companies that build interstates and new bridges that government hires to do it for them

Right! You! Are! And naturally those wages are being donated back to these companies. Road and bridge workers work for free. There is no net gain in the local economies. My bad!

You don't know what you are talking about. The economy grows on profits. Government doesn't make a profit building bridges. Just like you don't make a profit when you put a walk to your front porch. Sure, it's useful and only government can build bridges because of eminent domain. But to say it makes us richer is ridiculous.

It's sad how generation after generation of the economically ignorant like you are pumped out of government schools. Economics should be core high school curriculum. Though that would destroy the Democrat party who thrive on your ignorance filling the vacuous voids in your mind with misinformation.

All of these are useful:

Home: A job, investments
Economy: Profits

Home: Insurance
Economy: Police, military

Home: Garage, driveway, sidewalks, patio, front doors
Economy: Roads, bridges, sewers

Each of those areas are economic equivalents between your home and the economy. We need all three categories to make our lives work. But wealth is created only from the first category. Your job and investments for your home versus profits from companies.

The police and military protect what we have. They are like insurance for your home. And infrastructure like roads and bridges are necessary to function like sidewalks and patios in your home just like garages, driveways, ... for your home. But those don't make you richer. But only your job and investments make you richer.

This is simple, intuitive and straight forward. And it sailed right over your head, didn't it?

 

[kaz]

Your failing, badly. I didn't say we can't monitor them and my example wasn't monitoring. I didn't say anything with the marbles about you being able to see them. here's a question:

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.

Where in that example am I doubting your ability to see the marbles?

Our military has...what do you call it . . . oh, yeah - technology. Infrared, motion detection, helicopters, binoculars - all kinds of neat stuff, Wally!

Begging the question. I have a question though.
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.

So what's your answer? You're an inane little boy making an idiotic argument

If the room is a large barren, hard to traverse wasteland like the Texas/Arizona border there's plenty of time to catch up with all the marbles.

Even the ones you've obviously lost!

Which is why we don't have illegal aliens in this country. You're stupid as shit

I was talking about once we had the military stationed along the border.

I want to believe you knew what I meant and are just continuing to be an asshole because that's what you are, but maybe you just have comprehension issues. Maybe I should be pitying you instead of laughing at you.

Yes, the military covering and chasing down one person at a time over a thousand mile border makes so much sense. It's cheaper and easier than putting up a wall and stopping them. I see why that is intuitive to you. It's because you're a complete idiot

 

[kaz]

Not unless they are spending it.

Isn't that the point?

Spending on the economy rather than paying taxes is better for the economy.

Yep. Government doesn't produce anything. So net it can't grow the economy. All it does is shrink it by what it wastes

Who produced the Hoover Dam?

Relevance? You don't know what economic productivity is, Holmes

Did I stump you, dopey?

Who produced the Hoover Dam? It's not that hard a question.

It was paid for by money taken out of the economy from companies that make a profit. You don't know what opportunity cost is, do you Skippy?

I addressed infrastructure clearly. I'm not going to address it again project by project when it's the same answer

 

[kaz]

Yep. Government doesn't produce anything. So net it can't grow the economy. All it does is shrink it by what it wastes

I hope that is a sarcastic post. Repairing and improving the infrastructure, maintaining the military payroll and making the purchases necessary to supply and re-supply are just a few aspects of how government adds to the economy.

Hold up there. It does none of those things without taking or borrowing money. That isn't adding to the economy. In fact, the people could have private companies do it cheaper, which they do anyway but we have to funnel the money through government meat hooks to get to them.

Name the company that's going to take on the cost of extending an interstate, or building a new bridge between Lexington and Cincinnati.

The companies that build interstates and new bridges that government hires to do it for them

Who pays those companies?

Why don't they just do it on their own without government having to hire them?

The companies are paid for with money taken out of the economy from the companies that make a profit and grow the economy.

Seriously, you thought the money came from nowhere? Mama's don't let your children grow up to be educated by government ...

 

[kaz]

But he CONTINUED a Clinton policy, he didn't create it.

You're full of shit, as usual.

You know nothing, as usual. I'd explain it, but you are both butt stupid and ignorant.

Don't explain it, just cough up a link to Clinton cutting SEC regulators.

Here you go, you seriously are a moron

Google

 

[hadit]

A political party's nomination process only impacts those who voluntarily associate with the party and have a vested interest in the outcome. If I belong to the Green party, for instance, it doesn't matter to me how messed up the democrats are, because I'm not voting for any of the drones they're going to run

Really? Then why are Republicans so obsessed that Hillary is running? Just worry about your own Party.

Because they have a vested interest in not letting her get anywhere near the White House in anyway other than as a visitor.

 

[thanatos144]

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.

You want a say in the republican party? Become a republican and get active. Other wise stop whining like a bitch that the republicans wont let you run their party.

Are you unable to comprehend a simple concept? I want every American (registered voter) to vote and have their vote counted. I give ZERO fucks about the party's.

The party's have no business thwarting the will of the American people. Period..........."by" "for" and "of". You're perfectly happy getting bent over and having the party insert their 12" dick into your ass, most Americans aren't.

This is a primary. Not a general. Why does that confuse you so much?

Why have debates, why have voting, why have primaries? Primary or General, Americans should be allowed to vote and have that vote counted. Why does that confuse you so much?

First They did. Even Colorado there was voting there just wasn't a non binding straw poll. You see it is a REPUBLICAN primary that means REPUBLICANS in each state gets to choose who are the delegates and how they are distributed.... This is called federalism....It is what the country was founded on... Now I have educated you for all the good it will do.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yep. Government doesn't produce anything. So net it can't grow the economy. All it does is shrink it by what it wastes

I hope that is a sarcastic post. Repairing and improving the infrastructure, maintaining the military payroll and making the purchases necessary to supply and re-supply are just a few aspects of how government adds to the economy.

Hold up there. It does none of those things without taking or borrowing money. That isn't adding to the economy. In fact, the people could have private companies do it cheaper, which they do anyway but we have to funnel the money through government meat hooks to get to them.

Name the company that's going to take on the cost of extending an interstate, or building a new bridge between Lexington and Cincinnati.

The companies that build interstates and new bridges that government hires to do it for them

Who pays those companies?

Why don't they just do it on their own without government having to hire them?

Because they don't own the land, and have no right or jurisdiction to build there?

 

[HUGGY]

I hope that is a sarcastic post. Repairing and improving the infrastructure, maintaining the military payroll and making the purchases necessary to supply and re-supply are just a few aspects of how government adds to the economy.

Hold up there. It does none of those things without taking or borrowing money. That isn't adding to the economy. In fact, the people could have private companies do it cheaper, which they do anyway but we have to funnel the money through government meat hooks to get to them.

I think it is foolish to always believe that "cheaper" is better. Bush drastically cut back on the financial regulators. How did THAT savings work out for ours and the world's economies?

Bush sucked and that was stupid. But he CONTINUED a Clinton policy, he didn't create it. My God, you are a partisan boot licking Democrat, the people who fucked you and your family. How sad is that?

Very sad.

So seriously, you don't know that the subprime lending policies and deregulation of the financial industry were both Clinton policies? Wow, you really do drink the Democrat kool-aid, it's not like those were unknown agendas of his

I can't pretend I just fell off the turnip truck like you can. I lived through almost seven decades. Because I have never had a hankering for Kool Aid my mind hasn't been poisoned as yours seems to have been.

I agree that Clinton has been the sitting president as some of the most horrific and destructive legislation was passed and signed.

What do you think that impeachment BS was really about? A high level of slap and tickle by our elected representatives was going on by the same republicans that were attempting to destroy Clinton's credibility. If you ask me Billy Boi was set up. He was foolish and lent himself to be a dupe because of his stupid sex drive. Getting a blow job is hardly "news" as many senators and house representatives were doing the same thing even as they were impeaching Clinton.

The effect of the impeachment was that it weakened the presidency and Clinton signed some extremely bad legislation. The bill that allowed mass consolidation of the media was as Anti-American as it gets. The biggest difference between Obama and Clinton is that Obama refuses to sign bad legislation and after the impeachment Billy just rolled over and started acting like a stooge for the Christian fascists. They beat him up and wore him down.

I agree that Clinton was a horrible president. At least he treated the terrorists as criminals and didn't lie and start wars over these crazy muslims.

 

[Synthaholic]

I hope that is a sarcastic post. Repairing and improving the infrastructure, maintaining the military payroll and making the purchases necessary to supply and re-supply are just a few aspects of how government adds to the economy.

Hold up there. It does none of those things without taking or borrowing money. That isn't adding to the economy. In fact, the people could have private companies do it cheaper, which they do anyway but we have to funnel the money through government meat hooks to get to them.

Name the company that's going to take on the cost of extending an interstate, or building a new bridge between Lexington and Cincinnati.

The companies that build interstates and new bridges that government hires to do it for them

Who pays those companies?

Why don't they just do it on their own without government having to hire them?

Because they don't own the land, and have no right or jurisdiction to build there?

Thank you for admitting that government does indeed create jobs.

 

[kaz]

Hold up there. It does none of those things without taking or borrowing money. That isn't adding to the economy. In fact, the people could have private companies do it cheaper, which they do anyway but we have to funnel the money through government meat hooks to get to them.

I think it is foolish to always believe that "cheaper" is better. Bush drastically cut back on the financial regulators. How did THAT savings work out for ours and the world's economies?

Bush sucked and that was stupid. But he CONTINUED a Clinton policy, he didn't create it. My God, you are a partisan boot licking Democrat, the people who fucked you and your family. How sad is that?

Very sad.

So seriously, you don't know that the subprime lending policies and deregulation of the financial industry were both Clinton policies? Wow, you really do drink the Democrat kool-aid, it's not like those were unknown agendas of his

I can't pretend I just fell off the turnip truck like you can. I lived through almost seven decades. Because I have never had a hankering for Kool Aid my mind hasn't been poisoned as yours seems to have been.

I agree that Clinton has been the sitting president as some of the most horrific and destructive legislation was passed and signed.

What do you think that impeachment BS was really about? A high level of slap and tickle by our elected representatives was going on by the same republicans that were attempting to destroy Clinton's credibility. If you ask me Billy Boi was set up. He was foolish and lent himself to be a dupe because of his stupid sex drive. Getting a blow job is hardly "news" as many senators and house representatives were doing the same thing even as they were impeaching Clinton.

The effect of the impeachment was that it weakened the presidency and Clinton signed some extremely bad legislation. The bill that allowed mass consolidation of the media was as Anti-American as it gets. The biggest difference between Obama and Clinton is that Obama refuses to sign bad legislation and after the impeachment Billy just rolled over and started acting like a stooge for the Christian fascists. They beat him up and wore him down.

I agree that Clinton was a horrible president. At least he treated the terrorists as criminals and didn't lie and start wars over these crazy muslims.

None of that addresses the discussion, your lack of knowledge of the factual information that financial deregulation and the subprime lending policies started under Clinton. A simple google search and some reading would clear that up for you

 

[Iceweasel]

What do you think that impeachment BS was really about? A high level of slap and tickle by our elected representatives was going on by the same republicans that were attempting to destroy Clinton's credibility. If you ask me Billy Boi was set up. He was foolish and lent himself to be a dupe because of his stupid sex drive. Getting a blow job is hardly "news" as many senators and house representatives were doing the same thing even as they were impeaching Clinton.

The effect of the impeachment was that it weakened the presidency and Clinton signed some extremely bad legislation. The bill that allowed mass consolidation of the media was as Anti-American as it gets. The biggest difference between Obama and Clinton is that Obama refuses to sign bad legislation and after the impeachment Billy just rolled over and started acting like a stooge for the Christian fascists. They beat him up and wore him down.

Can you support any of that? As far as the impeachment, it's very old news. Bill had a history of bad behavior with women, any one of them would have doomed a Republican but the media looked the other way. Paula Jones sued for sexual harassment, was demonized in the press for it, but Billy lied under oath to deny her justice. The court wasn't about Monica or a blowjob, how can you be that misinformed? It came up in the investigation but it wasn't the issue.

Clinton had a Republican congress he had to work with and unlike obama, was far more interested in popularity than ideology.

 

[Synthaholic]

Hold up there. It does none of those things without taking or borrowing money. That isn't adding to the economy. In fact, the people could have private companies do it cheaper, which they do anyway but we have to funnel the money through government meat hooks to get to them.

Name the company that's going to take on the cost of extending an interstate, or building a new bridge between Lexington and Cincinnati.

The companies that build interstates and new bridges that government hires to do it for them

Who pays those companies?

Why don't they just do it on their own without government having to hire them?

Because they don't own the land, and have no right or jurisdiction to build there?

Thank you for admitting that government does indeed create jobs.

Kaz knows it too, but just won't admit it.

 

[kaz]

Name the company that's going to take on the cost of extending an interstate, or building a new bridge between Lexington and Cincinnati.

The companies that build interstates and new bridges that government hires to do it for them

Who pays those companies?

Why don't they just do it on their own without government having to hire them?

Because they don't own the land, and have no right or jurisdiction to build there?

Thank you for admitting that government does indeed create jobs.

Kaz knows it too, but just won't admit it.

No, the field of economics is right and leftist lawyers are wrong. Why would I "know" leftist lawyers are right? You people are like Jesus freaks who think everyone believes in Jesus and the ones who think they don't are lying

 

[Synthaholic]

The companies that build interstates and new bridges that government hires to do it for them

Who pays those companies?

Why don't they just do it on their own without government having to hire them?

Because they don't own the land, and have no right or jurisdiction to build there?

Thank you for admitting that government does indeed create jobs.

Kaz knows it too, but just won't admit it.

No, the field of economics is right and leftist lawyers are wrong. Why would I "know" leftist lawyers are right? You people are like Jesus freaks who think everyone believes in Jesus and the ones who think they don't are lying

Cecilie admitted it. Why can't you?

 

[hunarcy]

Yep. Government doesn't produce anything. So net it can't grow the economy. All it does is shrink it by what it wastes

I hope that is a sarcastic post. Repairing and improving the infrastructure, maintaining the military payroll and making the purchases necessary to supply and re-supply are just a few aspects of how government adds to the economy.

Hold up there. It does none of those things without taking or borrowing money. That isn't adding to the economy. In fact, the people could have private companies do it cheaper, which they do anyway but we have to funnel the money through government meat hooks to get to them.

Name the company that's going to take on the cost of extending an interstate, or building a new bridge between Lexington and Cincinnati.

The companies that build interstates and new bridges that government hires to do it for them

Who pays those companies?

Why don't they just do it on their own without government having to hire them?

Sometimes, they do build roads without the government hiring them When that happens, they charge a fee to use the road. It's called a toll.

 

[kaz]

Who pays those companies?

Why don't they just do it on their own without government having to hire them?

Because they don't own the land, and have no right or jurisdiction to build there?

Thank you for admitting that government does indeed create jobs.

Kaz knows it too, but just won't admit it.

No, the field of economics is right and leftist lawyers are wrong. Why would I "know" leftist lawyers are right? You people are like Jesus freaks who think everyone believes in Jesus and the ones who think they don't are lying

Cecilie admitted it. Why can't you?

She didn't admit anything, you were just being an eight year old. Like now