• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

US President 2016 - the Great Horse Race

He did say to sell your clothes to buy swords. And he himself did not own a sword...so, logically, Jesus was either a hypocrite, or naked.
 
The footage over the audio shows white people getting assaulted by blacks. The kinds of assaults that if the races were reversed would be more likely to cause an outrage.
 
How come Justin Bieber's hair fetched $40,000 on ebay? Donald Trump is running for president and needed a more youthful looking wig!
 
Sarah Palin: Vote Trump (Also I Shot This Boar)

http://www.joemygod.com/2016/04/03/sarah-palin-vote-trump-also-i-shot-this-boar/
PalinBoar-589x330.jpg

This afternoon Sarah Palin urged her supporters in Wisconsin to vote for Donald Trump. She illustrated her Facebook post with the above photo because of course. She writes:

On Wisconsin! Faith of America is in you to take us forward on Tuesday; to remain strong and independent of the status quo political establishment so your vote will truly represent your optimistic spirit and desire to WORK! Hardworking Wisconsinites deserve much better than a repeat of the establishment’s agenda that led to losing this great state to Obama in 2012 – by 200,000 votes!

The continued games of the permanent political class will assure a Hillary victory unless you tell them “ENOUGH!” and vote for bold, new leadership that puts your interests before party politics. Vote for your jobs and security. Vote for the first candidate since Reagan who is growing the Commonsense Conservative movement… the only one who’s created middle class jobs… the only one not living off your tax dollars… the only one Wisconsin can count on to steer us away from the rocky shoals ahead.

Vote for Donald Trump on Tuesday to make America great again. This is the message shared with diverse Wisconsin voters this weekend, including those of you I’m thrilled to see today at “Zingers and Flingers” Gun Range in Wausau today at 12:30. See you there!
 
According to Wikipedia under "Superdelegate," the following sentence can be found: "In a minority of the states, delegates are legally required to support the candidate to whom they are pledged." What strikes my attention is the word, "legally." These party's are private organizations, so how is there such a legal requirement imposed upon them?
 
fast said:
According to Wikipedia under "Superdelegate," the following sentence can be found: "In a minority of the states, delegates are legally required to support the candidate to whom they are pledged." What strikes my attention is the word, "legally." These party's are private organizations, so how is there such a legal requirement imposed upon them?
Click to expand...

Not sure on that one; I think it's probable that the parties didn't think it was beneficial to challenge those laws.
 
Terrell said:
fast said:
According to Wikipedia under "Superdelegate," the following sentence can be found: "In a minority of the states, delegates are legally required to support the candidate to whom they are pledged." What strikes my attention is the word, "legally." These party's are private organizations, so how is there such a legal requirement imposed upon them?
Click to expand...

Not sure on that one; I think it's probable that the parties didn't think it was beneficial to challenge those laws.
Click to expand...

Well, it could still be covered by contract law. If they agree that in return for being selected to go to the convention, they then do A, B and C while at the convention, they could be sued for breach of contract if they don't do A, B and C. Also, I think there'll be at least a few CEOs of private prison corporations at the GOP convention and they won't ask too many questions if they can get a bit of extra revenue by taking a few unfaithful delegates back home in the van with them.
 
It boggles the mind just how interwoven these major party's that are so-called private are intertwined with the subsequent election of a federal, government, presidential position. Is there justification for anger when there is unfairness within a party? Perhaps, but if it's truly a private party, then I have little reason to allow such private issues of unfairness captivate my attention. If you find unfairness in the electoral process, which is a public issue, then that's a different thing altogether, as it's just as much my business as it is anyone else's in the US. Corruption amidst a private club doesn't move me as it would if it were a public governmental affair.

If you want to run as a qualified candidate on Election Day, then do so with the full backing of a major party or do so without their backing, and if you choose either a major party or smaller party to affiliate yourself with, then limit your anger of unfairness to the private party of your choice. Whether party affiliated or not at all, then fully expect and demand fairness and lack of corruption in the election process that comes after nominee selection.

So what if the Republican delegate rules are not as fair from (oh say) one state to the next. The American people have no grounds to allow that anger to wash over into public domain ... unless the private/public distinction is so blurred from the interwoven aspects of the political process.

It's difficult to even know if I am minimizing my concerns when I consider the fact these organizations are not government regulated, yet when I see constant press coverage, it's hard to imagine that most people even realize that it matters they're private groups, especially when the "R" and "D" next to people's names mean more to some than even the positions they hold on issues.
 
Are you a Republican or a Democrat? I need to know before I decide whether I agree or disagree with your post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom