The Only Funny Thing I've Found about This Election..

[Pogo]

Yes, I've read thru the whole thread even before I first posted. I understood his words and what he meant. What I don't understand is why you keep nit-picking at something that has little to do with the point of his post......other than an attempt to show your superiority over someone else on something nobody else gives a shit about. Which only shows that you have the problem

Uh NO, he's trying to make his own words about other things not even in there. And I called him on it, and he can't admit it.

It was a simple throwaway, unworthy of all this cacophony, but his pride got away from him.

I won't abide that kind of dishonesty. So sue me.

YOU are the one that changed it from people to posters.

YOU cant admit it

YOU are the one that can't/won't let your pride get away from it..

Nevermind, it's useless....a fool will never admit their folly

Yeah that's what I keep telling him. He thinks if he gets the last word he weasels out of it.
The quote is there though. As soon as I hit "quote" -- it was locked.

Now isn't that the pot calling the kettle black...........

Awright look, I really don't know what this obsession with message board trolling is about particularly with a conversation one wasn't even a part of but let's clear this all up right now.

THIS is the original post I made back on page 1, the entire thing with nothing excised.

Roll tape.

What I find funny is we have the two most disliked, and least qualified, candidates in history...

and people on each side is clamoring how great their candidate is.

Are they now.

What site are you reading?

NOW then....

----- see anything in there about "Yahoo"? or "News sites"? or "news stations"? Or even "posters"?

Me neither. He made all that up. And that's dishonest.

Now maybe that's not what he meant to post. Maybe if he had it to do over he'd word it differently.
But that''s what he DID post. And he can't own up to it.

And by the way a couple of other readers clicked agreement with my post, so it's not like *I'm* the one playing stupid here.

Got it?

 

[Pogo]

It works this way.. If you KNOW that Clinton was gonna be nominee (since that was preordained) --- Why WASTE your primary vote on her?

That's kind of what I keep saying about the General -- if you know your state is going red or going blue anyway, then your vote for either one means absolutely nothing and those are the voters who can and should make a 3P splash.

But in my case I didn't "know" that anyway and voted against her. It was needed.

Matter of fact last round, when O'bama really was preordained being an incumbent, that vote would have been wasted, so I took the opportunity to vote in the Republican primary with the intent of having them present a better candidate. That is after all what I want -- better candidates.

Better if you're a loyal party animal to help pick the Repub most likely to blow himself up or spontaneously ignite --- and one that has trouble getting credible help from the corporation known as the RNC..

Makes perfect sense. And I suspect that Repubs pissed off about all the "hand size" and name-calling might have gone into the booth and voted for Bernie --- because they percieved him as the "weaker candidate" in the general election.

I don't know anyone who actually thinks/votes like that. I think that's a Lush Rimjob conspiratorial sabotage; I'm sure a few follow that line of thinking but I can't see it as widespread.

This partisan war has gotten so rotten and perverse --- that those are now acceptable/noble tactics to retain the power of your party.. We really need to restore voting on principle and voting for SERVICE -- not dynasties run by 2 Brand Name corporate enterprises for control of govt.

Agreed, the partisanship is widespread, agreed with all of that. I just don't buy that any significant number of voters are using the primary system as a sabotage tool.

 

[flacaltenn]

It works this way.. If you KNOW that Clinton was gonna be nominee (since that was preordained) --- Why WASTE your primary vote on her?

That's kind of what I keep saying about the General -- if you know your state is going red or going blue anyway, then your vote for either one means absolutely nothing and those are the voters who can and should make a 3P splash.

But in my case I didn't "know" that anyway and voted against her. It was needed.

Matter of fact last round, when O'bama really was preordained being an incumbent, that vote would have been wasted, so I took the opportunity to vote in the Republican primary with the intent of having them present a better candidate. That is after all what I want -- better candidates.

Better if you're a loyal party animal to help pick the Repub most likely to blow himself up or spontaneously ignite --- and one that has trouble getting credible help from the corporation known as the RNC..

Makes perfect sense. And I suspect that Repubs pissed off about all the "hand size" and name-calling might have gone into the booth and voted for Bernie --- because they percieved him as the "weaker candidate" in the general election.

I don't know anyone who actually thinks/votes like that. I think that's a Lush Rimjob conspiratorial sabotage; I'm sure a few follow that line of thinking but I can't see it as widespread.

This partisan war has gotten so rotten and perverse --- that those are now acceptable/noble tactics to retain the power of your party.. We really need to restore voting on principle and voting for SERVICE -- not dynasties run by 2 Brand Name corporate enterprises for control of govt.

Agreed, the partisanship is widespread, agreed with all of that. I just don't buy that any significant number of voters are using the primary system as a sabotage tool.

Then why was Trump noticeably weaker in "open states"? And why did Bernie do BETTER in open states?

BTW -- this is not just a personal "theory". It was from following the primary chaos as an IMPARTIAL observer.
For instance..

Bernie's Wisconsin ace in the hole

 

[Pogo]

It works this way.. If you KNOW that Clinton was gonna be nominee (since that was preordained) --- Why WASTE your primary vote on her?

That's kind of what I keep saying about the General -- if you know your state is going red or going blue anyway, then your vote for either one means absolutely nothing and those are the voters who can and should make a 3P splash.

But in my case I didn't "know" that anyway and voted against her. It was needed.

Matter of fact last round, when O'bama really was preordained being an incumbent, that vote would have been wasted, so I took the opportunity to vote in the Republican primary with the intent of having them present a better candidate. That is after all what I want -- better candidates.

Better if you're a loyal party animal to help pick the Repub most likely to blow himself up or spontaneously ignite --- and one that has trouble getting credible help from the corporation known as the RNC..

Makes perfect sense. And I suspect that Repubs pissed off about all the "hand size" and name-calling might have gone into the booth and voted for Bernie --- because they percieved him as the "weaker candidate" in the general election.

I don't know anyone who actually thinks/votes like that. I think that's a Lush Rimjob conspiratorial sabotage; I'm sure a few follow that line of thinking but I can't see it as widespread.

This partisan war has gotten so rotten and perverse --- that those are now acceptable/noble tactics to retain the power of your party.. We really need to restore voting on principle and voting for SERVICE -- not dynasties run by 2 Brand Name corporate enterprises for control of govt.

Agreed, the partisanship is widespread, agreed with all of that. I just don't buy that any significant number of voters are using the primary system as a sabotage tool.

Then why was Trump noticeably weaker in "open states"? And why did Bernie do BETTER in open states?

BTW -- this is not just a personal "theory". It was from following the primary chaos as an IMPARTIAL observer.
For instance..

Bernie's Wisconsin ace in the hole

Meh -- I don't think there's enough to base a theory on here. This piece seems to suggest Sanders appealed especially to independents, but that's to be expected, since he's always been an independent...

There could be a lot of variables in this, first of which is, which states have closed primaries?

Why was Rump noticeably weaker in open states? Beats me, why was he not weaker in every state?

I just think there are way too many variables, especially with so many candidates in play.

 

[BULLDOG]

Because of "open primary voting" -- you'll never KNOW how many people crossed over to "monkey wrench" the results --- just for fun. But as a marker -- Trump STRUGGLED in states with "open" primaries. Which tells you the "cross-over vote" mattered.

How do you mean?

I'm in one of those open primary states and as much as I detest Rump I didn't see any point in going out to vote against him.

It works this way.. If you KNOW that Clinton was gonna be nominee (since that was preordained) --- Why WASTE your primary vote on her? Better if you're a loyal party animal to help pick the Repub most likely to blow himself up or spontaneously ignite --- and one that has trouble getting credible help from the corporation known as the RNC..

Makes perfect sense. And I suspect that Repubs pissed off about all the "hand size" and name-calling might have gone into the booth and voted for Bernie --- because they percieved him as the "weaker candidate" in the general election.

This partisan war has gotten so rotten and perverse --- that those are now acceptable/noble tactics to retain the power of your party.. We really need to restore voting on principle and voting for SERVICE -- not dynasties run by 2 Brand Name corporate enterprises for control of govt.

Oh My. The two parties are now corporate enterprises. No, that doesn't sound like Dale Smith at all.

 

[flacaltenn]

Because of "open primary voting" -- you'll never KNOW how many people crossed over to "monkey wrench" the results --- just for fun. But as a marker -- Trump STRUGGLED in states with "open" primaries. Which tells you the "cross-over vote" mattered.

How do you mean?

I'm in one of those open primary states and as much as I detest Rump I didn't see any point in going out to vote against him.

It works this way.. If you KNOW that Clinton was gonna be nominee (since that was preordained) --- Why WASTE your primary vote on her? Better if you're a loyal party animal to help pick the Repub most likely to blow himself up or spontaneously ignite --- and one that has trouble getting credible help from the corporation known as the RNC..

Makes perfect sense. And I suspect that Repubs pissed off about all the "hand size" and name-calling might have gone into the booth and voted for Bernie --- because they percieved him as the "weaker candidate" in the general election.

This partisan war has gotten so rotten and perverse --- that those are now acceptable/noble tactics to retain the power of your party.. We really need to restore voting on principle and voting for SERVICE -- not dynasties run by 2 Brand Name corporate enterprises for control of govt.

Oh My. The two parties are now corporate enterprises. No, that doesn't sound like Dale Smith at all.

Purpose of the parties has become to perpetuate dynasties. No apparent consistent philosophy any more other than gaining and maintaining power. They are selling candidates as Brand Names. And protecting the Brand rather than serving the public. They close ranks and point at the OTHER whenever they are caught doing shit. And it works. Since they BOTH do as they please and there is no competition --- they can't LOSE much "market share".

1) Voters have no influence on the "directors". They are the party loyals. Who have taken the bullets for the cause.

2) Your party regularly abandons their constituents in "losing districts" to cut their losses. Much like 2 giant corporations dividing the territory for "market share". Your party for instance hunted the Southern Blue Dog Demos to extinction rather than tolerate their dissonance on fiscal sanity and national defense. The Repubs similarly hunt RINOs. It all leads to a very orchestrated and marketable package created from the TOP DOWN, not from consumer demand.

3) Meanwhile BOTH parties colluded on attacking dissidents from the Tea Party rather than allowing actual DISSENT in either ranks. Neutralized them as radicals because they dared to "stand for something" on their own.

4) The politicians of both parties are equally abused. If they speak their minds, they will be primaried out or left with a janitor closet for an Office on the hill.

5) They have polarized and stalemated ALL of Congress by controlling every detail of action/inaction with just FOUR people running and directing every move in Congress.

Don't know quite WHAT it is --- but it's very close to the tyranny the Founders warned about. In FACT ------

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.
- John Adams, Second President of the United States