Delegates....a rigged system?

[kaz]

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.

More directly, Syndi thinks that when you take a pail of water out of the pool and throw it into the pool, you created more water!

 

[Synthaholic]

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

So, you're going to stubbornly maintain that government does not create jobs, when government is the only one who will lay out the funds to create wider Interstates and build bridges, which employ thousands of people?

I guess that narrative doesn't fit your ideological worldview, so you refuse to admit the obvious.

 

[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?

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.

More directly, Syndi thinks that when you take a pail of water out of the pool and throw it into the pool, you created more water!

If you take a pail of water out of the pool and pour it on a dying flower bed, have you helped to grow those flowers?

(And don't be a retard and tell me the chlorine will kill the flowers. We're using analogies here)

 

[Slyhunter]

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

So, you're going to stubbornly maintain that government does not create jobs, when government is the only one who will lay out the funds to create wider Interstates and build bridges, which employ thousands of people?

I guess that narrative doesn't fit your ideological worldview, so you refuse to admit the obvious.

It took money out of the marketplace via taxation which cost more jobs than it made.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

More directly, Syndi thinks that when you take a pail of water out of the pool and throw it into the pool, you created more water!

If you take a pail of water out of the pool and pour it on a dying flower bed, have you helped to grow those flowers?

(And don't be a retard and tell me the chlorine will kill the flowers. We're using analogies here)

Yeah but the pool lost water in order for you to do that, thus a net loss.

 

[eagle1462010]

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.

More directly, Syndi thinks that when you take a pail of water out of the pool and throw it into the pool, you created more water!

If you take a pail of water out of the pool and pour it on a dying flower bed, have you helped to grow those flowers?

(And don't be a retard and tell me the chlorine will kill the flowers. We're using analogies here)

The Gov't has emptied the pool and is borrowing water to pay for water to use on the flowers................

Private jobs make jobs without causing an entire nation to pay for it............But yes Gov't contracts create jobs and Gov't jobs are .........wow...........JOBS..............

We are rapidly approaching 20 Trillion in debt.........the pool example is correct..........Pools are money holes and I'm thinking of getting rid of mine................because you keep having to pour money into it..............kinda like the Gov't..........never ending spending for little output.

 

[kaz]

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

So, you're going to stubbornly maintain that government does not create jobs, when government is the only one who will lay out the funds to create wider Interstates and build bridges, which employ thousands of people?

I guess that narrative doesn't fit your ideological worldview, so you refuse to admit the obvious.

You still don't grasp that the money came out of the economy which provided jobs as well. Your being stupid and all, I'll remind you I'm not an anarchist and I am for infrastructure. But it doesn't "net" create jobs. Be honest, you think by "net" I was referring to the Internet, didn't you, Al?

Prove you understood what I just said by explaining it. You don't have to agree or disagree with hit, just explain what I said. You can't, can you? Because you don't understand it. You just parrot leftist lawyers and this isn't what they said. Prove me wrong, Holmes. Show you grasp what we are discussing

 

[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?

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.

More directly, Syndi thinks that when you take a pail of water out of the pool and throw it into the pool, you created more water!

If you take a pail of water out of the pool and pour it on a dying flower bed, have you helped to grow those flowers?

(And don't be a retard and tell me the chlorine will kill the flowers. We're using analogies here)

I'm not going to go to the chlorine argument, but not for the reason you said. If I did that, it would just show that neither of us understand what we are talking about, and I do. Your flower analogy made no sense in the context of the pool.

The pool is the economy. How do you water flowers that are not in the economy? Your analogy made no sense, it just shows yet again you don't even understand the discussion

 

[kaz]

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

So, you're going to stubbornly maintain that government does not create jobs, when government is the only one who will lay out the funds to create wider Interstates and build bridges, which employ thousands of people?

I guess that narrative doesn't fit your ideological worldview, so you refuse to admit the obvious.

It took money out of the marketplace via taxation which cost more jobs than it made.

He still doesn't grasp what you just said

 

[kaz]

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.

More directly, Syndi thinks that when you take a pail of water out of the pool and throw it into the pool, you created more water!

If you take a pail of water out of the pool and pour it on a dying flower bed, have you helped to grow those flowers?

(And don't be a retard and tell me the chlorine will kill the flowers. We're using analogies here)

Yeah but the pool lost water in order for you to do that, thus a net loss.

And he still doesn't understand the pool is the economy. He's just a flower child, he wants to spread love and put flowers in the nuzzle of your guns. He's feeling the Bern

 

[Cecilie1200]

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!

Like I said, they're trying to influence the government and public policy, just like you are. They're doing it more effectively, and never once did I suggest that you were on any "par" with them in that regard. You're just trying to twist words and deflect, a sure sign that you know you're wrong, and you're too big a poltroon to admit it.

Clearly, insulting people is NOT all I have, since I also have an argument that you have to deliberately misconstrue in order to avoid it.

I am not "dismissing" the importance of the parties. That is ALSO your need to misconstrue my words in order to have the argument you WISH was happening, instead of the one you're too cowardly to face head-on. What I AM dismissing is your claim that there's something sinister, underhanded, Unconstitutional, etc. about it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

You can throw a hissy fit all YOU want, but the fact is, that's all you're doing is throwing a hissy fit. People are being made aware this election cycle of just how ignorant and lazy they have been, and responding by screaming and stomping your little feet and demanding that someone make the world the way you all thought it was RIGHT NOW will accomplish nothing, nor does it do our nation any good to encourage such behavior. Grow up.

You want to know why people haven't gotten good candidates? Look no farther than the mirror. Would you even recognize a good candidate if you got one? You're enthused about Donald fricking Trump. 'Nuff said.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

As it happens, the statewide straw poll they used to have in Colorado was never binding, apparently, so it didn't really change anything to have it on a precinct level this time around.

Sad how long it took for anyone to get around to pointing that out.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I didn't, because they don't. The government does nothing more than take resources out of the private sector, and redistribute them elsewhere. Not saying it isn't sometimes necessary, but it's not a "creation".

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

No, dipshit, as usual, Cecilie said something and you heard what you wanted to hear, which bore no resemblance or relation to what Cecilie said.

I will thank you not to try to put your filthy, ignorant words into my mouth. You're barely bright enough to speak for yourself; you're definitely not qualified to speak for me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

More directly, Syndi thinks that when you take a pail of water out of the pool and throw it into the pool, you created more water!

Well, but you walked all the way around to the other side of the pool and threw the water in there! Doesn't that mean that you made THAT side more full than the other? No?

 

[Iceweasel]

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!

Like I said, they're trying to influence the government and public policy, just like you are. They're doing it more effectively, and never once did I suggest that you were on any "par" with them in that regard. You're just trying to twist words and deflect, a sure sign that you know you're wrong, and you're too big a poltroon to admit it.

Clearly, insulting people is NOT all I have, since I also have an argument that you have to deliberately misconstrue in order to avoid it.

I am not "dismissing" the importance of the parties. That is ALSO your need to misconstrue my words in order to have the argument you WISH was happening, instead of the one you're too cowardly to face head-on. What I AM dismissing is your claim that there's something sinister, underhanded, Unconstitutional, etc. about it.

There is no comparison no matter how hard you massage it. Political parties not only try to influence elections, they do. They even pick our "choices" for us. I have one vote well after the fact.

I never used the word unconstitutional, quit pulling shit out of your ass and blaming me for mischaracterizing the conversation.

I said it was a crooked system, if you don't agree that's your opinion. I have mine and you don't have the authority to change it.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

You can throw a hissy fit all YOU want, but the fact is, that's all you're doing is throwing a hissy fit. People are being made aware this election cycle of just how ignorant and lazy they have been, and responding by screaming and stomping your little feet and demanding that someone make the world the way you all thought it was RIGHT NOW will accomplish nothing, nor does it do our nation any good to encourage such behavior. Grow up.

You want to know why people haven't gotten good candidates? Look no farther than the mirror. Would you even recognize a good candidate if you got one? You're enthused about Donald fricking Trump. 'Nuff said.

I haven't thrown a hissy fit and your lies are getting very old. I don't need to lie for my beliefs. YOU do!

 

[thanatos144]

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!

Like I said, they're trying to influence the government and public policy, just like you are. They're doing it more effectively, and never once did I suggest that you were on any "par" with them in that regard. You're just trying to twist words and deflect, a sure sign that you know you're wrong, and you're too big a poltroon to admit it.

Clearly, insulting people is NOT all I have, since I also have an argument that you have to deliberately misconstrue in order to avoid it.

I am not "dismissing" the importance of the parties. That is ALSO your need to misconstrue my words in order to have the argument you WISH was happening, instead of the one you're too cowardly to face head-on. What I AM dismissing is your claim that there's something sinister, underhanded, Unconstitutional, etc. about it.

There is no comparison no matter how hard you massage it. Political parties not only try to influence elections, they do. They even pick our "choices" for us. I have one vote well after the fact.

I never used the word unconstitutional, quit pulling shit out of your ass and blaming me for mischaracterizing the conversation.

I said it was a crooked system, if you don't agree that's your opinion. I have mine and you don't have the authority to change it.

go look up how many parties run for president and then please apologize to us all for your ignorance. off the top of my head there is republican, democrat, red ,Communist, green , socialist, libertarian, and several more.....you cant find a choice among those???? I know it is really because fake tans and comb overs turn you on.

 

[Iceweasel]

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!

Like I said, they're trying to influence the government and public policy, just like you are. They're doing it more effectively, and never once did I suggest that you were on any "par" with them in that regard. You're just trying to twist words and deflect, a sure sign that you know you're wrong, and you're too big a poltroon to admit it.

Clearly, insulting people is NOT all I have, since I also have an argument that you have to deliberately misconstrue in order to avoid it.

I am not "dismissing" the importance of the parties. That is ALSO your need to misconstrue my words in order to have the argument you WISH was happening, instead of the one you're too cowardly to face head-on. What I AM dismissing is your claim that there's something sinister, underhanded, Unconstitutional, etc. about it.

There is no comparison no matter how hard you massage it. Political parties not only try to influence elections, they do. They even pick our "choices" for us. I have one vote well after the fact.

I never used the word unconstitutional, quit pulling shit out of your ass and blaming me for mischaracterizing the conversation.

I said it was a crooked system, if you don't agree that's your opinion. I have mine and you don't have the authority to change it.

go look up how many parties run for president and then please apologize to us all for your ignorance. off the top of my head there is republican, democrat, red ,Communist, green , socialist, libertarian, and several more.....you cant find a choice among those???? I know it is really because fake tans and comb overs turn you on.

Sounds like you are still high from sniffing your dog's asshole. When you come down tell me how you determined your comments are related to anything I said. Thanks!