|
|
politics
Last Post 04/26/2020 06:49 PM by smokey 52. 198 Replies.
|
Sort:
|
|
 Prev Next |
You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
Orange Crush
Posts:4499
 |
| 03/23/2016 09:19 PM |
|
| Arizona - really? Banana Republic! |
|
|
|
|
ChinookPass
Posts:809
|
| 03/24/2016 01:40 PM |
|
Arizona - really? Banana Republic!
Yup and no matter who eventually occupies the oval office, there's going to be a lot of people convinced that their world will end.
I'm also withdrawing my statement that Trump will never be president. Who the hell knows anymore?!
The recent trend of big repubs jumping on the Trump or Cruz bandwagons is just plain weird. |
|
|
|
|
smokey52
Posts:493
|
| 03/25/2016 06:17 AM |
|
| Gail Collins (NYTimes) has some insight on the Republican responses: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/24/opinion/the-republicans-sin-of-endorsement.html?_r=0 |
|
|
|
|
Cosmic Kid
Posts:4209
|
| 03/25/2016 08:51 AM |
|
We all better start getting used to the term "President Trump".
God help us all. |
|
| Just say "NO!" to WCP!!!!
|
|
|
Nick A
Posts:625
|
| 03/25/2016 02:50 PM |
|
OC: I *think* that the two party system exists in the US because of the historical timing. We had one of the earlier, modern, sustained democracies. The concept of a parliamentary style government didn't get developed until the 1800's, when many other country's adopted it.
Also, for everyone, the ongoing stories about voting day shenanigans is troubling. Voters falling of of lists, lack of polling places in seemingly targeted areas, etc., etc. All thanks to the Supreme Court saying that the voting rights act was a quaint non-necessity in this day in age. Well at least five of them. Yeah, impartial court my a$$. |
|
|
|
|
smokey52
Posts:493
|
| 04/11/2016 11:11 AM |
|
| for the first time in many years, the NY primary has significance. Of course, that means we are getting inundated by ads -- both Republican and Democratic. blecch |
|
|
|
|
ChinookPass
Posts:809
|
| 04/11/2016 12:10 PM |
|
| When you say it has significance, I am getting quite confused about that these days. Seeing voting results, then seeing pledged delegates, then superdelegate counts... In our caucus, our precinct went 2-1 by a coin flip. Then I see an article about the repubs where only 10% of the voting delegates are linked to voters. It's confusing because both parties are insinuating that the other has a corrupt process yet neither seems very tightly coupled to votes. |
|
|
|
|
79pmooney
Posts:3180
|
| 04/11/2016 12:44 PM |
|
CP, I was a registered Democrat for years. Voted (actually wrote in my "preference") in the caucus when I lived in Seattle. This was my first election in a caucus state. Asked what happened from there. (This was in someone's house, not a public place at all.) I was told that the preferences would be counted up and delegates chosen of those who stayed to go to the district caucus in a few days. I asked what happened if one of the candidates had no one stay. Well, that delegate went to another candidate.
So I stayed to ensure my preference (I' call him "A") would get a delegate. Preferences were tallied up. A had nearly 2/3s, B nearly 1/3. Our neighborhood was allotted three delegates. Well, of the three of who stayed, two were for B. So, despite the clearly written intention of the Democrats of our neighborhood to support A, B got 2/3s of the delegates.
I went to the district caucus. Here there was a smaller majority for A, a stronger B but a small but clamoring group that wanted to go on to the state level as "uncommitted delegates". They dragged out the proceedings so that what should have been done in half a day went late into the afternoon. Finally, the A delegates and B delegates started talking, agreeing that despite our differences, we should vote together as a block to prevent the uncommitted getting a large enough percentage of the total to be recognized. (I think they needed 10%) And finally we A and B delegates were talking about those uncommitted delegates not being remotely what the people we were representing intended.
Final tally came. The uncommitted block missed by one vote. I was glad I came but completely disgusted by what I saw and knew I would never be a member of a party again. Not until things changed a lot.
I feel like I am not participating fully in our elective process and shirking some of my responsibility as a citizen, but at the same time, I cannot be part of something that corrupt by design.
Ben |
|
|
|
|
ChinookPass
Posts:809
|
| 04/11/2016 01:21 PM |
|
That's a good story Ben and sums up the current phase of this process pretty well. Changing the process will take a revolution since the current system is so entrenched and has so much mass behind it. It was pretty clear from the caucus that the Sanders folks want a revolution but I don't think there are enough folks committed enough to make that happen. (and by the way, to you college students out there, we have elections regularly, not just once every 4 years).
Even if all were fair, we each get only one vote and that is not terribly significant. If you really want to make some difference, you have to be committed and involved on a level that is much greater than I have the talent or interest to be. But to not use your opportunities to vote is inexcusable. |
|
|
|
|
smokey52
Posts:493
|
| 04/11/2016 06:17 PM |
|
Ben, CP-
Your experience points to a big difference between primary selection (15 minutes in a voting booth) versus caucus selection (discussion ad naseum). Of course, placement on the primary ballot is quite the process too. In our Congressional district in NY, HC has 6 of 6 delegates listed on the ballot. BS (IMO an apt acronym) has only 4. |
|
|
|
|
ChinookPass
Posts:809
|
| 04/12/2016 10:28 AM |
|
I'd like to see non-partisan primaries and elimination of the nominating conventions. If we had one round of primaries, select the top 2, then have a general election, I think we would see more candidates engaging the issues and drawing in the independent voters. We might get less extreme candidates driving the primary process.
That's my utopian thought for the day. |
|
|
|
|
79pmooney
Posts:3180
|
| 04/12/2016 01:45 PM |
|
CP, I have trouble with that. "But to not use your opportunities to vote is inexcusable." Yes, but to participate in the system, especially at the primary/caucus level is to give my blessing to a corrupt system.
I do vote in the finals, always, even knowing that there is real corruption at that level. (GW Bush and the Florida elections where newly registered blacks were turned away because their names matched names on lists of convicts and their votes tossed into the trash. Those results allowed to stand by the brother of the winning candidate. And the Supreme Court blessing the proceedings. That was a third world election if there ever was one! No impartial observer would ever have let that stand.
Ben |
|
|
|
|
ChinookPass
Posts:809
|
| 04/13/2016 10:48 AM |
|
| I get that Ben. The thing that surprised me about the caucuses is that they were run by very idealistic volunteers, not big business or lobbyists, etc. The system may be rigged and dominated by money and big business and all that but just sitting out and not participating at all to me sounds like throwing a silent temper tantrum. Whether or not to participate in something you don't believe in but which at it's core is what most societies covet is definitely a conundrum. |
|
|
|
|
smokey52
Posts:493
|
| 05/01/2016 07:40 PM |
|
BHO sparkled at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. Larry Wilmore not so much.
Good grief, it looks like the Donald will achieve the Repugnant nomination. |
|
|
|
|
Nick A
Posts:625
|
| 05/02/2016 01:53 PM |
|
Maybe I'm low brow, but I thought Larry Willmore was funny.
Nick |
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
Active Forums 4.1
|
|
No articles match criteria.
|