Jump to content


- - - - -

Who plans to vote FOR a candidate, and who plans to vote AGAINST one


Poll: Voting for or against?

In the general election will you vote for a candidate you like, or against one you really don't like

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#31 dohdough   Sum Dum Guy CAGiversary!   6854 Posts   Joined 10.0 Years Ago  

Posted 20 May 2016 - 04:42 AM

Ah, the ignorance. 

Says the doofus that has no idea who William Weld is after saying they'd vote libertarian because of "common sense." Time to pass that joint, slick!



#32 mrsilkunderwear   Just Do It. CAGiversary!   1701 Posts   Joined 9.8 Years Ago  

mrsilkunderwear

Posted 20 May 2016 - 05:22 AM

Says the doofus that has no idea who William Weld is after saying they'd vote libertarian because of "common sense." Time to pass that joint, slick!

Sure, just as soon as you finish reading a chapter of Econ101. ;)



#33 dohdough   Sum Dum Guy CAGiversary!   6854 Posts   Joined 10.0 Years Ago  

Posted 20 May 2016 - 01:53 PM

Sure, just as soon as you finish reading a chapter of Econ101. ;)



#34 soulvengeance   Beating dead horses CAGiversary!   4226 Posts   Joined 15.7 Years Ago  

soulvengeance

Posted 20 May 2016 - 02:01 PM

I never thought I would see a Luniz video in a political thread.  Well done. :)



#35 dohdough   Sum Dum Guy CAGiversary!   6854 Posts   Joined 10.0 Years Ago  

Posted 20 May 2016 - 02:12 PM

I never thought I would see a Luniz video in a political thread.  Well done. :)

If someone's gonna do it, it might as well be me! :rofl:

 

It's my jam.



#36 berzirk   I'm not so serious CAGiversary!   2506 Posts   Joined 11.2 Years Ago  

Posted 20 May 2016 - 04:42 PM

Of course.  Why wouldn't I be?  The role of superdelegates is to independently make a choice of which candidate would be best for the party.  They don't need to wait for a vote to be cast because their choice isn't intended to be based on the popular vote.  The only reason to be upset by this is if you fail to understand how superdelegates operate or what their function is.

 

But superdelegates aren't bound to their first choice, either.  When Obama started beating Clinton in the primaries, Clinton lost superdelegates to him.  Sanders is just failing to make the case.  The best he has is some general election polling that no one who is politically savvy cares about because they all know that "largely unknown senator" polling isn't going to hold up under a negative campaign.

 

Again, no one made Sanders run as a Democrat.  He sure didn't do it because he cares about the Democratic Party.  If he wanted guaranteed ballot access, he could have run as an independent instead of throwing a hissy fit that he's losing and calling the system rigged just because he didn't campaign as well as he needed to.

Alright, well, I guess we just really disagree on that topic. I am pretty sickened by the role and purpose of superdelegates. They are literally in place, to make sure someone really popular that won't be in the establishment's best interest comes along and wins a primary. To me, that happening is called democracy, and should be welcomed. 

 

Actually, I just looked up the GOP superdelegate rules (which I'm quite sure will be changed after Trump sweeping through and winning the people's nomination).

 

http://www.bustle.co...erent-this-year

 

Notable quotes:

"The GOP, however, has decided to establish fewer superdelegates than the Democrats. In the Republican Party, the only people who get superdelegate status are the three members of each state's national party. This means that in the GOP, superdelegates are only about 7 percent of the total number of delegates."

 

"The more important distinction, though, is that Republican superdelegates do not have the freedom to vote for whichever candidate they please. The Republican National Committee ruled in 2015 that their superdelegates must vote for the candidate that their state voted for, and that's the biggest difference between Republican and Democratic superdelegates."

 

So not only does the GOP have far fewer superdelegates, but they also require they vote the way their state voted...because you know, will of the people and such. Dang man, I don't know.  I just can't see a scenario where anyone should be proud of the way the superdelegate system was implemented on the Democrat side.  I understand that all candidates new these were the rules, but IMO, those are shitty rules. It seems to cheapen democracy, and move closer to (which let's face it, it's what we really have) a plutocracy. 



#37 Syntax Error   Art School Dropout CAGiversary!   10957 Posts   Joined 6.9 Years Ago  

Syntax Error

Posted 20 May 2016 - 04:58 PM

Becoming a party nominee is not a democratic process though and was never intended to be a purely democratic process.  Political parties are, by their very nature, not populist devices.  Complaining that they're not acting like a pure democracy misses the point of what a political party is.

 

The quoted portions of your story aren't entirely accurate if you're trying to imply that the GOP process is much more "democratic".  For example, witness the nomination process from the Colorado or Pennsylvania Republican caucuses.

 

If Sanders (or Trump who also incessantly whined about his party's process) want a purely democratic process, it's simple: You run as an independent and collect enough ballot signatures in every state to make it onto that state's ballot.  So, assuming you can get enough popular support, you're guaranteed a spot.  But that's a long, expensive process and you lose the benefits of party backing.  So they would rather glom onto an existing party to get the benefits and then throw hissy fits about the rules, like joining a softball league and becoming irate that they're not playing basketball like you hoped.

 

I think there's a lot less there to be proud of when someone who never supported an organization before comes in and starts demanding rule changes (including threatening revolt) because they want to have their cake and eat it too.  But then I don't need to convince you one way or the other -- Democrats have already given Clinton an insurmountable lead with or without superdelegates.



#38 berzirk   I'm not so serious CAGiversary!   2506 Posts   Joined 11.2 Years Ago  

Posted 20 May 2016 - 05:13 PM

Agreed that the party doesn't care much about democracy, they care about getting their person elected, and keeping the powerful in power. An organized third party could have swept this election.  To go Batman, the country is getting what we deserve.



#39 Syntax Error   Art School Dropout CAGiversary!   10957 Posts   Joined 6.9 Years Ago  

Syntax Error

Posted 20 May 2016 - 05:25 PM

Agreed that the party doesn't care much about democracy

In terms of the method by which they determine the best candidate for them to support?  No, not really.  Neither party does.  No party in our nation's history has.  Because that's not what a political party is or does.

 

Amusing Washington Post piece that I saw minutes after posting my softball/basketball comparison.  :-P



#40 berzirk   I'm not so serious CAGiversary!   2506 Posts   Joined 11.2 Years Ago  

Posted 20 May 2016 - 05:46 PM

In terms of the method by which they determine the best candidate for them to support?  No, not really.  Neither party does.  No party in our nation's history has.  Because that's not what a political party is or does.

 

Amusing Washington Post piece that I saw minutes after posting my softball/basketball comparison.  :-P

Ehh, I can only partially get on board with the comparisons. Certainly you can at least admit that the DNC has said and done things which could be interpreted by a rational person, to have given Hillary an advantage.  Number of debates, timing of debates.  Wasserman-Schulz' condemnation of some NV event...that now as more videos come through seem to be less and less proof of mass protests and violence. Odd outcomes, like winning something like 8 straight coin tosses or something. I can't even remember the details on half of it. 

 

I mean...Tulsi Gabbard felt so disenfranchised in the process that she dropped out of DNC leadership so she could openly support Sanders. For someone who wants to have a long political career, that could be looked at as greatly passionate, or career suicide. 

 

They started Hillary with an enormous headstart, she was the presumptive nominee when it all started, and they wanted this thing to be over many, many months ago because they thought they had their unified candidate waiting in the wings since 2012. They forgot how unlikable she was, and the warts that they hoped they could cover up.  The enthusiasm that the Sanders campaign has drummed up has brought more people into the process, and the establishment folks aren't happy about it.  It means she might need to pick one or two Sanders supporters for cabinet and political positions and Clinton Foundation roles. instead of getting to payback the supers for all that support. 



#41 Syntax Error   Art School Dropout CAGiversary!   10957 Posts   Joined 6.9 Years Ago  

Syntax Error

Posted 20 May 2016 - 06:02 PM

I know it's comforting to assume that supers supported Clinton for "payback" but Clinton isn't going to be "paying back" hundreds of people in any meaningful way even if she was so inclined.

 

Supers are supporting Clinton because they are people who have worked hard within the party for the party and see Clinton as the candidate who is in the party's best interests.  People from public service on all levels from mayors to state reps to federal reps.  People who've worked in the trenches for years to get people registered and work the fundraising and voting efforts.  She simply offers much more to those people than some guy who never gave a shit about the party before and only attached himself now for convenience.  Then cries that people who've spent their lives trying to make the party successful won't support him.



#42 Bizz  

Posted 24 September 2016 - 04:17 PM

apparently our very own CheapyD doesn't want anyone voting for Trump and will blacklist and block people on twitter who call him out on it.

 

I thought he was a better person than that. Guess I was wrong.



#43 soulvengeance   Beating dead horses CAGiversary!   4226 Posts   Joined 15.7 Years Ago  

soulvengeance

Posted 24 September 2016 - 06:12 PM

apparently our very own CheapyD doesn't want anyone voting for Trump and will blacklist and block people on twitter who call him out on it.

 

I thought he was a better person than that. Guess I was wrong.

Cool story bro.  Is this on his personal Twitter account?  I mean, he's allowed to block whoever he wants.



#44 detectiveconan16   Delicious! CAGiversary!   7124 Posts   Joined 12.2 Years Ago  

detectiveconan16

Posted 24 September 2016 - 09:17 PM

If you want Bernie Sanders' policies to work, why don't you vote for Congressmen, Senators, City Councilmen, Mayors, Governors, etc who stand a better chance of actually writing the laws to implement them. It reminds me about what the current President said about "good legislation." Good legislation is designed to fit the needs not the wants of the general populace. But we keep electing the same morons who decide to tack enough pork to line their own suits with grease.

 

I may not be enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton, but at least she isn't going on television demonizing poor and/or brown people as much as Trump does. I thought we lived in 2016, but Trump supporters want to send us back to the good old days, like the Gilded Age. And by god, people are cool with Trump being buddies with Russia?

 

Oh yeah, this is Libertarianism.



#45 UncleBob  

Posted 25 September 2016 - 08:38 PM

Seems like a good topic to stick this in, as the topic was shifted to this direction for awhile.

So, Sanders supporters (ones who donated) are suing the DNC for fraud, stating that the DNC was not impartial, giving Clinton preferential treatment - which we all *knew*, but with the recent DNC leaked emails, there's now proof.

Except that the DNC is trying to get the lawsuit thrown out because the plaintiffs should have known that the DNC was favoring Hillary.

#46 berzirk   I'm not so serious CAGiversary!   2506 Posts   Joined 11.2 Years Ago  

Posted 26 September 2016 - 04:21 PM

Seems like a good topic to stick this in, as the topic was shifted to this direction for awhile.

So, Sanders supporters (ones who donated) are suing the DNC for fraud, stating that the DNC was not impartial, giving Clinton preferential treatment - which we all *knew*, but with the recent DNC leaked emails, there's now proof.

Except that the DNC is trying to get the lawsuit thrown out because the plaintiffs should have known that the DNC was favoring Hillary.

It would be comical if this wasn't real life. I don't know if it makes me admire Hillary for the fact that she can constantly break the rules and at worst get her wrist slaps, or if it reinforces my hatred for her. When talking about quality candidates, when people rave about her realistic policies and vision for the future...she is running a CLOSE CONTEST against a buffoon like Donald Trump.  You can blame it on racists and xenophobes, but it would be a gross over-generalization to say that's Trumps entire support group.  Anyone else running on the Democratic ticket would have Trump beat by 15 points and they would be on to naming cabinet positions publicly right now. 

 

These are the worst two candidates who have run in my lifetime.



#47 UncleBob  

Posted 27 September 2016 - 06:58 AM

Virtually all sane Republican candidates would be stomping Hillary.
Virtually all sane Democrat candidates would be stomping Trump.

#48 berzirk   I'm not so serious CAGiversary!   2506 Posts   Joined 11.2 Years Ago  

Posted 27 September 2016 - 06:54 PM

Virtually all sane Republican candidates would be stomping Hillary.
Virtually all sane Democrat candidates would be stomping Trump.

And the sad part is that a majority of sane voters from both parties, somehow landed on these two dirtbags as the "best". 

 

I just hope that the disdain for these two is enough to build momentum for third party candidates to start from a higher position in 4 years. 



#49 Jodou   Infamous CAGiversary!   14258 Posts   Joined 10.5 Years Ago  

Posted 27 September 2016 - 07:17 PM

Or impeach. Y'know, that would always work for me. ;)



#50 RedvsBlue  

RedvsBlue

Posted 27 September 2016 - 07:44 PM

You know, that's one thing I'm just not completely sold on. Yeah, Trump's a shitty person and yeah he'd make a terrible but are we really to believe a presidency under him would mark the end of the world?

I mean really, the single biggest power the president has would be nuclear launch capability. Even still, it requires the secretary of defense to concur. And if he were to make that move, I'd have to imagine Pence would immediately try to have him removed under the 25th amendment procedures. Even failing that, I still doubt everyone involved in the order to launch wouldn't refuse the command as an illegal order.

Don't get me wrong, I think Trump is a disaster but this narrative that he will cause the end of our country and he entire world is just too ridiculous.

For any other ridiculous actions he could get up to there's plenty of other checks and balances built into our system.

#51 dopa345   All around nice guy CAGiversary!   2247 Posts   Joined 15.2 Years Ago  

Posted 28 September 2016 - 02:24 AM

Both would be terrible presidents, though Trump would not be the end of civilization as we know it.  He is such an egomaniac that I think his only goal is to win the election.  He has the attention span of a gnat so I cannot imagine him tolerating the day-to-day responsibilities of the presidency.  I think he would end up delegating everything and Mike Pence would be the most powerful vice president in U.S. history. Trump's cabinet would likely have far more authority and autonomy within their spheres of influence.  He'd end up being a major disappointment to his supporters and would be a one term president.

 

Clinton as president would just further accelerate our country's decline as Obama's policies would be continue and likely tilt even more left.  There is also a lot of unknowns in regards to her hacked emails.  I'm sure Russia and likely many other hostile foreign governments are sitting on a treasure trove of dirt on her which they can use as leverage against her in future high stakes confrontations.  And this is downplayed by the media but there should be serious concerns about her health.

 

Clinton may be the lesser of two evils but deciding between these two is like choosing between shooting myself in the head or taking a poison pill. 



#52 detectiveconan16   Delicious! CAGiversary!   7124 Posts   Joined 12.2 Years Ago  

detectiveconan16

Posted 28 September 2016 - 10:56 PM

Why bother to vote? Trump's Russian buddies are going to do it for us anyway.



#53 mrsilkunderwear   Just Do It. CAGiversary!   1701 Posts   Joined 9.8 Years Ago  

mrsilkunderwear

Posted 29 September 2016 - 02:51 PM

giphy.gif



#54 dohdough   Sum Dum Guy CAGiversary!   6854 Posts   Joined 10.0 Years Ago  

Posted 30 September 2016 - 12:02 AM