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

US President 2016 - the Great Horse Race

ksen said:
No, my argument is that if political parties want to have closed primaries they can pay for it themselves. Why should independents and republicans have to pay for a closed democratic primary or vice versa? If they want to use government money then they open their primaries.

It's their choice.
Click to expand...

Why should whether the primaries are closed or not matter in that calculation? It would still be ultimately for the benefit of a party. And nobody is excluded in any meaningful from voting in a closed primary. Your argument reeks of sour grapes.

I don't necessarily disagree with parties funding primaries, but it's a bit late and off point to bring up now. Open primaries are the newer style of primary.
 
I'm not advocating this as a sourgrapes Bernie supporter so . . . ok I guess?
 
ksen said:
I'm not advocating this as a sourgrapes Bernie supporter so . . . ok I guess?
Click to expand...

It is not really a matter of sour grapes with Bernie supporters so much as being opposed to people with track records that indicate they would continue to ignore the environment and continue to abuse the underclasses in America. I have always opposed Hillary Clinton on the basis of her actions. Neither her nor Trump are acceptable as President of our country, but the two party duopoly are going to try to force one of them on us. We've had scum for presidents in the past, so I assume they think scum now should be good enough for us. The world has changed and we need good leadership, not liars, cheaters, blusterers, racists, global warming deniers, or kleptocrats.

Three weeks before the re registration deadline, I tried to change my registration so I could vote for Bernie. Somehow my registration application disappeared. How about that? I found out that it had not been recorded three days before the deadline when I received my Green Party sample ballot in the mail. I checked on line and I was not re registered....so I applied on line...(the Secretary of State website says it can be done) When I tried it, my application was rejected on two separate days. It does matter who can vote how many votes go to Hillary or Bernie. So smug people are making remarks and they truly do not understand the underhandedness that is afoot in our country.

If you look at the Democratic total vote count as opposed to the Republicans you will find it much lower. The majority of people in this country do not sympathize with either the Democrats or the Republicans. Both parties have sold out to big money. The Democrats are doing their best to cut progressive influence in their party and succeeding. I will not vote for any Democrat except Bernie Sanders in the general election. If you want you can vote for Jill Stein who has a truly humanistic platform. If enough of those sour grapes non represented voters do that, maybe the party could overcome the threshold of votes to get some public financing. You can imagine somehow that Hillary will do right by you, but she will not and will sell out anybody for power and money. And there is a lot of money on the table for environmentally threatening projects and military adventures. Voting for Hillary is at your own peril.:thinking:
 
Last edited:
Meanwhile in "We have some money to burn", polling for New Jersey came out. Clinton is up on Trump by 11 points. Sanders is up by 24 points. To me this indicates Clinton's numbers may be a bit off here. May bump up to 16 pts.

One thing is really clear, as stated earlier. Trump apparently will not modify the Electoral College in the Northeast, like he bravely claimed that NY and NJ would be winnable in November. No way in heck! PA and NH are the only states in play north of Virginia, and PA probably isn't that much in play, though that state really is tight, with margins less than 10 points.
angelo said:
Bernie or bust! It's more likely that bust may win out.
Click to expand...
No. But thanks for playing.
 
ksen said:
I'm not advocating this as a sourgrapes Bernie supporter so . . . ok I guess?
Click to expand...

Can you show that you have ever advocated for this previously in any other context?
 
angelo said:
Bernie or bust! It's more likely that bust may win out.
Click to expand...

They way people fear Trump so much they blind themselves to Hillary's crimes perhaps it always was a bust but we must be honest with ourselves. It isn't sour grapes. The contest is not a sport. Wake up, Angelo. Nothing looks too hopeful in this exercise of corruption and undemocracy.
 
arkirk said:
angelo said:
Bernie or bust! It's more likely that bust may win out.
Click to expand...

They way people fear Trump so much they blind themselves to Hillary's crimes perhaps it always was a bust but we must be honest with ourselves. It isn't sour grapes. The contest is not a sport. Wake up, Angelo. Nothing looks too hopeful in this exercise of corruption and undemocracy.
Click to expand...

But Bernie chose it.
Eyes wide open.
Knowing exactly what the rules were from the very beginning.

I am really confused as to why he, or you, would complain NOW about the rules he voluntarily signed up for because they were better than any other choice he had.

Shouldn't he have said to the DNC, "Look, I'll run on your party as a Dem if you are willing to make the following rules changes: No caucuses, only full on primaries as open as the general election and no superdelegates. If you'll agree to that, I'll be a Dem." And then see what they say?
 
Rhea said:
arkirk said:
They way people fear Trump so much they blind themselves to Hillary's crimes perhaps it always was a bust but we must be honest with ourselves. It isn't sour grapes. The contest is not a sport. Wake up, Angelo. Nothing looks too hopeful in this exercise of corruption and undemocracy.
Click to expand...

But Bernie chose it.
Eyes wide open.
Knowing exactly what the rules were from the very beginning.

I am really confused as to why he, or you, would complain NOW about the rules he voluntarily signed up for because they were better than any other choice he had.

Shouldn't he have said to the DNC, "Look, I'll run on your party as a Dem if you are willing to make the following rules changes: No caucuses, only full on primaries as open as the general election and no superdelegates. If you'll agree to that, I'll be a Dem." And then see what they say?
Click to expand...

Back in 2008, there was a bit of a dust-up over Obama's birth certificate. It carried over into his Presidency, and the noise got loud enough that he actually produced his "long form" BC in order to attempt to quell the rumors. What was the issue? Well there was more than a little racism involved, but it was also about legitimacy. The people who were pushing the birther narrative were trying to undermine the fact that Obama had legitimately won the election and was legitimately qualified to have run in the first place.

Simply put, they were mad that he won, and were looking for a way - any way - that there could be a "do-over" and get rid of this alleged pretender.

I think there's a lot of that going on here with Bernie. Not the racism part, but the idea that since the primary hasn't turned out the way his most fanatical supporters wanted, then somehow the process is illegitimate. That Hillary has somehow nefariously swiped the nomination out from under Bernie. That she's illegitimate and that he's the only "real" contender in the race. More than just the aforementioned "sour grapes," the Bernie Faithful have decided that if he's not the nominee, then the whole process must therefore be corrupt, even if there's no evidence that it was done any differently than in the past.

Simply put, they're mad that he's losing, and are looking for a way - any way - to make it somehow not about the fact that Bernie was a long shot from the get-go.
 
So the Libertarian Party nominated Johnson for President and Weld for Vice President.

I've got an idea. Perhaps someone should start a party for those who follow the libertarian ideology. The candidates would all be ideological libertarians. It seems like it might be a good idea, since no such party exists right now.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
So the Libertarian Party nominated Johnson for President and Weld for Vice President.

I've got an idea. Perhaps someone should start a party for those who follow the libertarian ideology. The candidates would all be ideological libertarians. It seems like it might be a good idea, since no such party exists right now.
Click to expand...


That sounds like an interesting idea, but where would we find a person who fancies himself as the only person qualified to rule on what is and is not truly libertarian?


:thinking:
 
Perhaps by the very obscure and complicated process of knowing what the hell words mean. Perhaps we should find someone for whom speech is their native tongue.

I don't see many people who have that qualification around here.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Says someone who favors the Superdelegate-ridden Democratic Party.
Click to expand...
You are the one whining about the Libertarian party nominating people who are not "ideological libertarians", not me. I didn't know you favored the Democratic Party - wouldn't that make you less than an ideological liberatarian?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom