You've proven many times you don't understand politics or economics, you're never going to be in the 1% so give it a rest.Jay wrote:
Why bother? You've stated many times that you don't understand economics and have no desire to learn. That you would embrace the anti-1% rhetoric just proves it. Those people are ignorant - like you.
LolDilbert_X wrote:
You've proven many times you don't understand politics or economics, you're never going to be in the 1% so give it a rest.Jay wrote:
Why bother? You've stated many times that you don't understand economics and have no desire to learn. That you would embrace the anti-1% rhetoric just proves it. Those people are ignorant - like you.
uziq wrote:
I find jay hugely amusing and intellectually juvenile.
Each state primary is worth x delegates. If no one receives 50% of total x, the party has a closed convention and the designated delegates all meet to choose the candidate. Has never happened in my lifetime and probably won't happen now.globefish23 wrote:
Are the parties actually obliged to nominated the candidate who won the primaries?
Or can they pull some tricks to override it?
Every state is different. Some delegates must vote based on the primary, some can do as they like. Some are only forced to vote in the first round, some in every round. Then there are the 'super' delegates which are bound to nobody and can vote how they like to swing the result. It's a system designed when your 'betters knew what was best' and the fastest form of communication was a man on a horse; and even then it was a farce.globefish23 wrote:
Are the parties actually obliged to nominated the candidate who won the primaries?
Or can they pull some tricks to override it?
Great hyperbole, but if you bothered to look at how the system is run and set up in America, it's built on corruption and systems to remove as much of the democratic process as possible.uziq wrote:
I love democracy until the will of the people gets a result I don't like and then I want to magically overturn it.
brought to you by the country that invented hitler.
Last edited by DrunkFace (2016-03-16 15:55:44)
insert the hurrr its not a democracy its a republic.DrunkFace wrote:
Every state is different. Some delegates must vote based on the primary, some can do as they like. Some are only forced to vote in the first round, some in every round. Then there are the 'super' delegates which are bound to nobody and can vote how they like to swing the result. It's a system designed when your 'betters knew what was best' and the fastest form of communication was a man on a horse; and even then it was a farce.globefish23 wrote:
Are the parties actually obliged to nominated the candidate who won the primaries?
Or can they pull some tricks to override it?Great hyperbole, but if you bothered to look at how the system is run and set up in America, it's built on corruption and systems to remove as much of the democratic process as possible.uziq wrote:
I love democracy until the will of the people gets a result I don't like and then I want to magically overturn it.
brought to you by the country that invented hitler.
This is the most ignorant argument used against the US system. We have a Senate and a House of Representatives. Senate has two members from each state regardless of size. House of Reps is apportioned based on state population. This is easy to understand, yes? Electoral College is an extension of this. The number of electoral college voters from each state is equal to their number of senators plus their number of representatives. When we have a national election for president, it's not a federal election, it's 50 state elections where the winner of the state popular vote wins the electoral college votes attached to the state. It's really not that difficult to comprehend.Cybargs wrote:
insert the hurrr its not a democracy its a republic.DrunkFace wrote:
Every state is different. Some delegates must vote based on the primary, some can do as they like. Some are only forced to vote in the first round, some in every round. Then there are the 'super' delegates which are bound to nobody and can vote how they like to swing the result. It's a system designed when your 'betters knew what was best' and the fastest form of communication was a man on a horse; and even then it was a farce.globefish23 wrote:
Are the parties actually obliged to nominated the candidate who won the primaries?
Or can they pull some tricks to override it?Great hyperbole, but if you bothered to look at how the system is run and set up in America, it's built on corruption and systems to remove as much of the democratic process as possible.uziq wrote:
I love democracy until the will of the people gets a result I don't like and then I want to magically overturn it.
brought to you by the country that invented hitler.
i do find it weird how it still uses the electoral college system... made sense in 1700s but not today though...
yep nothing wrong, since mathematically someone can win the US election with only 22% of the popular vote.Jay wrote:
This is the most ignorant argument used against the US system. We have a Senate and a House of Representatives. Senate has two members from each state regardless of size. House of Reps is apportioned based on state population. This is easy to understand, yes? Electoral College is an extension of this. The number of electoral college voters from each state is equal to their number of senators plus their number of representatives. When we have a national election for president, it's not a federal election, it's 50 state elections where the winner of the state popular vote wins the electoral college votes attached to the state. It's really not that difficult to comprehend.Cybargs wrote:
insert the hurrr its not a democracy its a republic.DrunkFace wrote:
Every state is different. Some delegates must vote based on the primary, some can do as they like. Some are only forced to vote in the first round, some in every round. Then there are the 'super' delegates which are bound to nobody and can vote how they like to swing the result. It's a system designed when your 'betters knew what was best' and the fastest form of communication was a man on a horse; and even then it was a farce.globefish23 wrote:
Are the parties actually obliged to nominated the candidate who won the primaries?
Or can they pull some tricks to override it?
Great hyperbole, but if you bothered to look at how the system is run and set up in America, it's built on corruption and systems to remove as much of the democratic process as possible.
i do find it weird how it still uses the electoral college system... made sense in 1700s but not today though...
The only marginally unfair part about all this is that small population states like Montana and Wyoming have a slightly more influential voice because the two senators give them more votes than they would have based on population alone. But, we're talking 3 votes versus 1 so it's rather negligible. It's also by design, because when our country was founded, small states were afraid that they would be made completely irrelevant - so they get equal representation in the Senate and a slight advantage in the Electoral College.
The left wing hand wringers and protestors in this country - the ones that scream and chant and shout down anyone that doesn't agree with them make me actually want to vote for Trump just to spite them. I hate Trump's position on nearly every issue but I despise causeheads more.uziq wrote:
i was of course being facetious. but in general i see a lot of tutting and um'ing and ah'ing amongst bien pensant liberals here in the UK about the 'trump problem'. i have absolutely no sympathy or compatibility with trump's views at all but it does stick in the craw somewhat when 'enlightened' sorts try to say that the political opinion of a large group of people is wrong or somehow unacceptable. this pisses me off because i hold the rather unfashionable view of thinking democracy is a poor system of governance, really. but it's always the most vocal proponents of the accepted latterday 'virtue triggers' who will turn around and quite seriously say that we've got to stop the voting determination of these rednecks 'for their own good'. that is not democracy. if that is how you genuinely want to do politics, then you may as well out yourself as a supporter of a different type of administration altogether. put on the brown shirt and join me on the barricades, brethren.
Your opinion is completely irrelevant.Cybargs wrote:
yep nothing wrong, since mathematically someone can win the US election with only 22% of the popular vote.Jay wrote:
This is the most ignorant argument used against the US system. We have a Senate and a House of Representatives. Senate has two members from each state regardless of size. House of Reps is apportioned based on state population. This is easy to understand, yes? Electoral College is an extension of this. The number of electoral college voters from each state is equal to their number of senators plus their number of representatives. When we have a national election for president, it's not a federal election, it's 50 state elections where the winner of the state popular vote wins the electoral college votes attached to the state. It's really not that difficult to comprehend.Cybargs wrote:
insert the hurrr its not a democracy its a republic.
i do find it weird how it still uses the electoral college system... made sense in 1700s but not today though...
The only marginally unfair part about all this is that small population states like Montana and Wyoming have a slightly more influential voice because the two senators give them more votes than they would have based on population alone. But, we're talking 3 votes versus 1 so it's rather negligible. It's also by design, because when our country was founded, small states were afraid that they would be made completely irrelevant - so they get equal representation in the Senate and a slight advantage in the Electoral College.
Yep, system makes complete sense.
Last edited by Jay (2016-03-16 18:33:07)
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/16/politics/ … index.htmlDonald Trump and Ted Cruz warned fellow Republicans Wednesday of dire consequences if the GOP establishment attempts to have a brokered convention this summer.
"I think you'd have riots. I think you'd have riots," Trump said Wednesday on CNN's "New Day." "I'm representing a tremendous many, many millions of people."
The Republican Party veered closer to a contested convention Tuesday after Ohio Gov. John Kasich won his home state and deprived Trump, the party's front-runner, of its 66 delegates. That makes it more difficult for the billionaire to reach the 1,237 delegates he needs to capture the GOP prize without a floor fight.
But that is exactly how it is set up.uziq wrote:
i was of course being facetious. but in general i see a lot of tutting and um'ing and ah'ing amongst bien pensant liberals here in the UK about the 'trump problem'. i have absolutely no sympathy or compatibility with trump's views at all but it does stick in the craw somewhat when 'enlightened' sorts try to say that the political opinion of a large group of people is wrong or somehow unacceptable. this pisses me off because i hold the rather unfashionable view of thinking democracy is a poor system of governance, really. but it's always the most vocal proponents of the accepted latterday 'virtue triggers' who will turn around and quite seriously say that we've got to stop the voting determination of these rednecks 'for their own good'. that is not democracy. if that is how you genuinely want to do politics, then you may as well out yourself as a supporter of a different type of administration altogether. put on the brown shirt and join me on the barricades, brethren.
Last edited by DrunkFace (2016-03-16 21:46:27)
I want to see everyone in that crowd faceswapped with the woman on the lower right.SuperJail Warden wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/16/politics/ … index.htmlDonald Trump and Ted Cruz warned fellow Republicans Wednesday of dire consequences if the GOP establishment attempts to have a brokered convention this summer.
"I think you'd have riots. I think you'd have riots," Trump said Wednesday on CNN's "New Day." "I'm representing a tremendous many, many millions of people."
The Republican Party veered closer to a contested convention Tuesday after Ohio Gov. John Kasich won his home state and deprived Trump, the party's front-runner, of its 66 delegates. That makes it more difficult for the billionaire to reach the 1,237 delegates he needs to capture the GOP prize without a floor fight.
Threatening a riot if he can't get his way. What a mature candidate.
Horrifying group of people to let loose...
I believe only the Democrats have super delegates. Feel free to join the party and vote for a rule change.DrunkFace wrote:
But that is exactly how it is set up.uziq wrote:
i was of course being facetious. but in general i see a lot of tutting and um'ing and ah'ing amongst bien pensant liberals here in the UK about the 'trump problem'. i have absolutely no sympathy or compatibility with trump's views at all but it does stick in the craw somewhat when 'enlightened' sorts try to say that the political opinion of a large group of people is wrong or somehow unacceptable. this pisses me off because i hold the rather unfashionable view of thinking democracy is a poor system of governance, really. but it's always the most vocal proponents of the accepted latterday 'virtue triggers' who will turn around and quite seriously say that we've got to stop the voting determination of these rednecks 'for their own good'. that is not democracy. if that is how you genuinely want to do politics, then you may as well out yourself as a supporter of a different type of administration altogether. put on the brown shirt and join me on the barricades, brethren.
The entire delegate system and especially super delegates are there to ensure that population can't elect the 'wrong' candidate. The republican party doesn't like Trump. So if he doesn't win by a majority (and the candidacy) in the first round where most delegates are required by law to vote as the populace did. Then many of those delegates are legally allowed to change there vote for someone else in subsequent rounds.
