Delegates....a rigged system?

[Cecilie1200]

Maybe you could clarify your yes or no question. Are you arguing that voting should determine all the delegates or just that it's wrong not to have voting determine a portion of them?

The state can set it up however they want. Winner Take All, Portion of Delegates are divided up, Caucus, Straight Primary, Open Primary...whatever. It's not a difficult question. Should Americans be allowed to vote for a candidate and have their vote counted? Yes of no?

People should be asked their opinions. Organizations should be allowed to listen to them or not as it applies to their private goals. People who don't like the rules of the organization in question should go form their own damned organization instead of demanding control of someone else's.

You didn't answer the question. Quit with the straw man.

Should American's (registered voters) be denied their vote be it via caucus or straight vote primary? Yes or no?

I DID answer your question. You don't HAVE a vote in the parties. You have an opinion, and no, I'm not the least bit interested in pretending otherwise.

Maybe you could clarify your yes or no question. Are you arguing that voting should determine all the delegates or just that it's wrong not to have voting determine a portion of them?

The state can set it up however they want. Winner Take All, Portion of Delegates are divided up, Caucus, Straight Primary, Open Primary...whatever. It's not a difficult question. Should Americans be allowed to vote for a candidate and have their vote counted? Yes of no?

People should be asked their opinions. Organizations should be allowed to listen to them or not as it applies to their private goals. People who don't like the rules of the organization in question should go form their own damned organization instead of demanding control of someone else's.

You didn't answer the question. Quit with the straw man.

Should American's (registered voters) be denied their vote be it via caucus or straight vote primary? Yes or no?

That isn't up to YOU to decide. No one forced Trump to run as a republican so he and people like you need to stop crying about the rules.

Perfect. You're fine with American voters being disenfranchised and not having a vote.

That answered my question. Thank you

If that's what you heard, then you've validated my belief that you didn't want an answer, anyway. You were asking the question merely as a way to hear the answer you wanted whatever I said, and wasted your time and mine both.

 

[HUGGY]

Let's not forget the importance of stupid people in the Trump movement........also an important factor.

I don't see the evidence that Trump supporters are stupid. The Donald seems to have a way of starting off with fairly rational statements like 'we need to control the border" or "wait a minute, lets figure out what immigrants we're taking in so we aren't like Europe." He gets some voter support. But then he ramps it up to say really offensive things, which of course gets the media to plaster him all over the media.......

I think he's really a charlatan, but that really is irrelevant to a discussion of whether the primary systems of both parties are designed to measure popular support, or whether they are more set up to protect the power of the individual state parties.

To say that Trump exploits a low information voter constituency would be a little bit of an understatement.

I see a strong resemblance between Sanders supporters and Trump supporters. Both groups seem to be hypnotized by unrealistic and frankly un-acheivable promises. When someone wishes the world was more to their liking it should be upon them to take extra effort in vetting someone that makes those promises. Trump and Sanders want to be president. I doubt either of them has any realistic path to making good on what they have promised.

You certainly can't underestimate the importance of gaining unenthusiastic support for candidates who generate no excitement or loyalty with anyone.

Y'know, I was thinking earlier that that's a part of this that Trumpettes don't get: when we talk about parties supporting a candidate, we aren't just talking about them slapping an (R) after their name and the rank-and-file voting for them. Political parties do much more to support a candidate than that, provided they actually SUPPORT the candidate (and no, I don't mean "rigging" elections or sleazy backroom deals or whatever other apocryphal Illuminati crap Trumpettes imagine).

Political parties do an immense amount of legwork, data mining, organization, funding - both directly and through personally selling donors on a candidate - canvassing, campaigning . . . Is it really any wonder that they make a fight out of being choosy about who they put that amount of effort behind?

I have to wonder if Donald Trump truly understands the difference between what he's going to get if he pulls his head out and stops alienating everyone except his rabid base, and what he's going to get if he keeps trying to bully everyone?

Good points. I can't help but wonder how Trump and Sanders think they will get congressional support for their wild plans.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

You act like a complete cvnt in EVERY THREAD you participate in. Perhaps you should do a bit of reflection instead of projection.

You act like a pussy who hates women who don't "know their place" in every thread you participate in. Perhaps you should butch the fuck up, or go find a nice knitting circle to join.

I mention projection you mention "butch"

Priceless

I mention "misogynist pussy", and you prove me right.

Priceless.

Testier than usual today. That streetwalker you hire whip you to hard today or did he forget the safety word?

Perhaps if you spent less time fantasizing about my sex life and got one of your own, you wouldn't hate women so much.

Or maybe trying to have a sex life is WHY you hate women so much. One too many gales of laughter when the pants came off?

YOU are the only woman on this site I take issue with. You're a nasty beastie. Act like a bitch, get treated like one.

#dealwithit

 

[Cecilie1200]

You act like a pussy who hates women who don't "know their place" in every thread you participate in. Perhaps you should butch the fuck up, or go find a nice knitting circle to join.

I mention projection you mention "butch"

Priceless

I mention "misogynist pussy", and you prove me right.

Priceless.

Testier than usual today. That streetwalker you hire whip you to hard today or did he forget the safety word?

Perhaps if you spent less time fantasizing about my sex life and got one of your own, you wouldn't hate women so much.

Or maybe trying to have a sex life is WHY you hate women so much. One too many gales of laughter when the pants came off?

YOU are the only woman on this site I take issue with. You're a nasty beastie. Act like a bitch, get treated like one.

#dealwithit

Deserve a bitch, get one.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Rigged cluster fuck or perfectly normal?

Both

Which makes it even more sad.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Clueless on state party rules too?

Lol, so you think that encoding cheating into the rules makes cheating OK?

lol, so if they make it a rule that everyone has to vote for Obama, that makes it OK to force everyone to vote Obama?

roflmao

 

[Cecilie1200]

Clueless on state party rules too?

Lol, so you think that encoding cheating into the rules makes cheating OK?

lol, so if they make it a rule that everyone has to vote for Obama, that makes it OK to force everyone to vote Obama?

roflmao

Seriously? "Cheating in the rules". Does the phrase "contradiction in terms" ring any bells? If it's in the rules, by definition, it's NOT CHEATING.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Seriously? "Cheating in the rules". Does the phrase "contradiction in terms" ring any bells? If it's in the rules, by definition, it's NOT CHEATING.

Lol, yes, the rules alone do not define cheating in any system.

For example a three man poker team can fleece a 4th man, the target, who has no idea he is facing a team of players. They use finesse techniques to force him to make unwise bets and have ways of signalling their hands. None of that is against the rules in poker or stupid players couldnt play.

And yet any poker player that has run into such a team knows it is cheating.

Anything else I can school your stupid ass on while I'm here, dear?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Seriously? "Cheating in the rules". Does the phrase "contradiction in terms" ring any bells? If it's in the rules, by definition, it's NOT CHEATING.

Lol, yes, the rules alone do not define cheating in any system.

For example a three man poker team can fleece a 4th man, the target, who has no idea he is facing a team of players. They use finesse techniques to force him to make unwise bets and have ways of signalling their hands. None of that is against the rules in poker or stupid players couldnt play.

And yet any poker player that has run into such a team knows it is cheating.

Anything else I can school your stupid ass on while I'm here, dear?

Yeah, um, dumbass, that's actually against the rules. I think you've confused "rules" with "basic instructions".

Anything else I can school YOUR Trumpette (synonymous for stupid) ass on while I'm here, moron (I don't fake affection for fools, sorry)?

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Here's just a small taste of the delegate system in action. Rigged cluster fuck or perfectly normal?

Delegate Deception - Linkis.com

Some of us know more about local and state party stuff than others. But what is funny, is that sometimes people put their feet in their mouths

"In 40 percent of the contests, Trump did at least 10 percentage points better in the delegate race than in the actual voting." -

Trump’s Right That The GOP Primary Is Unfair — It Favors Him​

Sure it's rigged. That's why Trump is in the lead.

So? Does it, or should it, be fixed?

Define "fixed".

You're kidding right? What do you not understand about states disenfranchising voters?

Should American's (registered voters) be denied their vote be it via caucus or straight vote primary? Yes or no?

cereal_killer

The state of Colorado DID NOT disenfranchise voters. The state GOP change how the public would or would not get to participate in their delegate selection.

If any state canceled a general election, that would be what you think you are talking about. But that is not what actually happened. The state of Colorado actually nothing to do with what the state GOP did using their own party and their rules.

Here "Should American's (registered voters) be denied their vote be it via caucus or straight vote primary?" You are confusing what the state does and what a state party does.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Some of us know more about local and state party stuff than others. But what is funny, is that sometimes people put their feet in their mouths

"In 40 percent of the contests, Trump did at least 10 percentage points better in the delegate race than in the actual voting." -

Trump’s Right That The GOP Primary Is Unfair — It Favors Him​

Sure it's rigged. That's why Trump is in the lead.

So? Does it, or should it, be fixed?

Define "fixed".

You're kidding right? What do you not understand about states disenfranchising voters?

Should American's (registered voters) be denied their vote be it via caucus or straight vote primary? Yes or no?

Maybe you could clarify your yes or no question. Are you arguing that voting should determine all the delegates or just that it's wrong not to have voting determine a portion of them?

The state can set it up however they want. Winner Take All, Portion of Delegates are divided up, Caucus, Straight Primary, Open Primary...whatever. It's not a difficult question. Should Americans be allowed to vote for a candidate and have their vote counted? Yes of no?

In a party primary? The parties say no. It is up to them. They even own the names as well as the logos

 

[JimBowie1958]

Seriously? "Cheating in the rules". Does the phrase "contradiction in terms" ring any bells? If it's in the rules, by definition, it's NOT CHEATING.

Lol, yes, the rules alone do not define cheating in any system.

For example a three man poker team can fleece a 4th man, the target, who has no idea he is facing a team of players. They use finesse techniques to force him to make unwise bets and have ways of signalling their hands. None of that is against the rules in poker or stupid players couldnt play.

And yet any poker player that has run into such a team knows it is cheating.

Anything else I can school your stupid ass on while I'm here, dear?

Yeah, um, dumbass, that's actually against the rules. I think you've confused "rules" with "basic instructions".

Anything else I can school YOUR Trumpette (synonymous for stupid) ass on while I'm here, moron (I don't fake affection for fools, sorry)?

Lol a code of conduct is not part of the rules of the game, nit wit. Break the rules and you get tossed from a game, and maybe assaulted. But violate the code of conduct and yo get a polite warning, etc. So if you violate the code of conduct in a way that no one notices, yo are not risking being tossed from the game.

Have you ever played a serious game of poker where people bet real money? There are all kinds of idiots who do things to bluff like they have a great hand, and NOTHING HAPPENS TO THEM. Now, you cant sit there and say 'I have a full house' but you might ask 'I'm new to this game; does a flush beat a straight?' etc.

For fucks sake, you do not know what the hell you are talking about, once again.

 

[JimBowie1958]

In a party primary? The parties say no. It is up to them. They even own the names as well as the logos

Bullshit.

IF the party negates the votes of their own members they are engaging in fraud and yes there are laws against that.

They have to obey their own rules and any applicable state laws.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

In a party primary? The parties say no. It is up to them. They even own the names as well as the logos

Bullshit.

IF the party negates the votes of their own members they are engaging in fraud and yes there are laws against that.

They have to obey their own rules and any applicable state laws.

Really? Tell it to the judge. Why do you people keep making shit up?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Really? Tell it to the judge. Why do you people keep making shit up?

No one is making shit up, Sherlock

 

[BluesLegend]

The parties get taxpayer funding in the general hence the corrupt bastards are not free to do whatever the hell they want. If they wish to be private entities then lets have a go at them with RICO and start sending them to prison and see how they like that.

 

[kaz]

OK, let's pursue your lie. What do you agree with Republicans about? No hand waiving

Smaller government when possible. I say "when possible" because there are exceptions. Depleting the regulators in advance of the financial melt down at the end of Bush's second term was devastating.

Advancing the rights and conditions that create a stronger small business environment.

Promoting negotiations and fair competition for all government procurement. This includes everything from pharm costs to non secret military purchases.

Strong support of the 2nd amendment. I would go even farther than the constitution currently allows providing citizens a pathway to prove that they are worthy candidates for gun ownership having made poor choices early in life. Some previous felons have turned their lives around and should be able to protect what gains they have made in starting stable families and property.

Strong support of the U S Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I don't consider this "a game" so unless you agree with that list please don't bother me with your nonsense opinions about what you believe my political leanings are.

I said no hand waiving. Members of both parties would agree with your list as you stated it. Saying you are for small business for example is something Obama says all the time. Right before he fucks us in the ass.

Guns are one that many liberals say too. The difference is that liberals always say it in conversations not about guns for cred, they never argue it in an actual gun debate. And this isn't a gun debate ...

Nothing you said here wasn't something either party would say. Which is why I said no hand waiving. The question is what do you support that Republicans support and Democrats would actually disagree with, not just mean something different?

I said no games. I believe my voting record shows I have given the GOP many chances to do the right thing.

I believe where you are attempting to go with this is an area that I doubt you will understand or have any value towards which is strong individual rights. The GOP USED to be the strongest platform for the reinforcement of individual rights. Now I am not so sure. The democrats certainly are more interested in collective rights as they make no attempt to hide it.

My biggest problem with the current GOP leadership is that they are more interested in furthering the power of the christian church in American's daily lives than they are defending the Constitution. NO RELIGIOUS TEST! As an atheist I find that diversion away from doing the legitimate business of the country and promoting their christian agenda offensive.

The Dems don't push religion but their social agendas more than make up for it in my disdain.

Anyway I'm not going to waste any more time attempting to explain how my mind works in regards to politics.

You just want to pick a useless fight and know so little about my situation that the furthering of this discussion is pointless.

All I'm looking for you to say is something that says, oh yeah, that's Republican. All you faux Republicans who say you were a Republican say the crap you did. Hand waiving BS, bull shit that they are christian extremists, a bunch of Democrat bigotry and ignorance.

Once again another long response that doesn't say anything about why you would ever have been a Republican. Just like the rest of the Democrats who insist on making that shallow claim.

Here's an easy one, what did you LIKE about the Republican party? These should be easy questions for you, if what you said it true, but you keep whiffing

Go fuck yourself. You are in no position to question my GOP history. Take your arrogant bullshit down the road Sparky. As of now I'm done with you.

You post all day long your love of the Democrat party. All we have so far is that W was elected unanimously because all of you were Republicans until he stole the election where everyone and everyone you know voted for W, Democrats didn't exist. How did the election get that close when there was no such thing as a Democrat then?

And then, what made you realize Democrats were right on every other issue too?

 

[Desperado]

Of course it is rigged. If it wasn't, we would have a nation wide primary voting day to select the candidates for both parties.
Get it all done in a day, same rules for all, no super delegates. No party elites over riding the will of the people.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Seriously? "Cheating in the rules". Does the phrase "contradiction in terms" ring any bells? If it's in the rules, by definition, it's NOT CHEATING.

Lol, yes, the rules alone do not define cheating in any system.

For example a three man poker team can fleece a 4th man, the target, who has no idea he is facing a team of players. They use finesse techniques to force him to make unwise bets and have ways of signalling their hands. None of that is against the rules in poker or stupid players couldnt play.

And yet any poker player that has run into such a team knows it is cheating.

Anything else I can school your stupid ass on while I'm here, dear?

Yeah, um, dumbass, that's actually against the rules. I think you've confused "rules" with "basic instructions".

Anything else I can school YOUR Trumpette (synonymous for stupid) ass on while I'm here, moron (I don't fake affection for fools, sorry)?

Lol a code of conduct is not part of the rules of the game, nit wit. Break the rules and you get tossed from a game, and maybe assaulted. But violate the code of conduct and yo get a polite warning, etc. So if you violate the code of conduct in a way that no one notices, yo are not risking being tossed from the game.

Have you ever played a serious game of poker where people bet real money? There are all kinds of idiots who do things to bluff like they have a great hand, and NOTHING HAPPENS TO THEM. Now, you cant sit there and say 'I have a full house' but you might ask 'I'm new to this game; does a flush beat a straight?' etc.

For fucks sake, you do not know what the hell you are talking about, once again.

It's not just a "code of conduct", Trumpette. It's THE RULES. We're not talking about "don't put your elbows on the table at dinner". You do NOT get "a polite warning" for the stuff you mentioned: you get tossed from the gaming establishment and banned for life. If it's a private game, you get the crap beaten out of you and banned for life. I have no idea where you got the notion that "the rules" was just flush beats a pair, and not team playing and card counting was just "a polite suggestion".

They're cheating because they're AGAINST THE RULES. There is no number of times you're going to mindlessly assert that they're "a code of conduct" - which is another term for "the rules", FYI - that's going to make them not the rules, much the same way that no number of mindless assertions that Trump is a brilliant candidate and you're not a mind-numbed cultist will make THAT true.

You're a moron, team-playing in poker is against the rules, and Trump is a jackass with a cheap spray tan. Period.

 

[Cecilie1200]

In a party primary? The parties say no. It is up to them. They even own the names as well as the logos

Bullshit.

IF the party negates the votes of their own members they are engaging in fraud and yes there are laws against that.

They have to obey their own rules and any applicable state laws.

"Their own rules" don't require them to hold votes OR abide by them. Neither do any state laws. Moron. But why don't you tell your Orange Messiah to stop blustering about lawsuits and bring one for once in his chickenshit life? Oh, that's right, because he knows he CAN'T, and that all he can do is fool mouthbreathers like you.