2016 US Presidential Election Thread - VII

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I wanted to vote for Hillary but I'm not registered as a Democrat, and New York primaries haven't mattered in a long time.

So while I'm sure a lot of those who want to vote for Bernie are closed out, it's not as if there aren't also those who want to vote the other way who can't vote because of this idiotic time limit.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by BEAL

I'm sure that article has some spin to it, but I just don't care about Hillary's speeches.

It was nothing illegal, and nothing any other person of power has done before.

The problem I have is the assumption that because someone received $, that they are now bought and paid for by that entity. That Hillary will do Wall St's bidding and evil deeds.

I just don't see it being so black and white. Will some favors be returned, yes. Can we prove any of it? Most likely not.

It's the game, and it's easy to be on the outside screaming in when you refuse to do anything about it. There's a reason every president looks like they've aged 80 years after taking office....it's not a simple job, and idealogy tends to go out the window when you actually have to GOVERN

We all know Bernie is in the pocket of Big Ice Cream.

Show us the Ben and Jerry's speeches!

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by BEAL

The problem I have is the assumption that because someone received $, that they are now bought and paid for by that entity. That Hillary will do Wall St's bidding and evil deeds.

I just don't see it being so black and white. Will some favors be returned, yes. Can we prove any of it? Most likely not.

Obama disagrees with you here.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

I'd say while the 6 month deadline is absolutely absurd, closed primaries aren't necessarily right either.

In a multiparty system? Sure. Closed primaries make sense. In a two party system, it just insists upon "picking a side." It encourages a two party system to thrive. Primaries should be semi-open to independents.

If you don't bother to sign up for the club, you can't vote for the club's treasurer. What's stopping everyone going independent and voting to place the weaker candidate for the other side?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[BEAL]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

Obama disagrees with you here.

Obama promised the most transparent presidency ever, and maybe he delivered on that promise, it really wasn't that way.

It's like the primary process, candidates will cater towards the extremes of their party, but if/when they get the nomination, they better gravitate back towards the center to get elected.

No different than making it into the office. You can have all the promises to change the world, but you'll soon find out it's more complex and you won't be able to push your view through 100%, maybe not even 50/50

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by BVS

If you don't bother to sign up for the club, you can't vote for the club's treasurer. What's stopping everyone going independent and voting to place the weaker candidate for the other side?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

This is the weakest and most repeated argument in favor of closed primaries. It's like you just ignored the point I made about how closed primaries encourage this two party system to thrive. Just babbling the wash-rinse-repeat line that everyone uses.

And your argument overall is both condescending and total garbage. If you think conspiring independents will try to sabotage an election... what's stopping republicans from changing parties to vote for the weaker candidate on the other side and do the very same thing?

[Bluer White]

Originally Posted by womanfish

I was actually shocked that Trump got registered as a Republican early enough.

Good one

[BVS]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

This is the weakest and most repeated argument in favor of closed primaries. It's like you just ignored the point I made about how closed primaries encourage this two party system to thrive. Just babbling the wash-rinse-repeat line that everyone uses.

And your argument overall is both condescending and total garbage. If you think conspiring independents will try to sabotage an election... what's stopping republicans from changing parties to vote for the weaker candidate on the other side and do the very same thing?

Lucky, did you not read my post? Your second paragraph is exactly what I was saying.

Like it or not, it's an organization, if you're not willing to identify yourself with that organization why do you feel you have a say in how the organization proceeds.

I'm not willing to label myself D or R, so I don't feel any right to tell them who they should nominate.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by BVS

Lucky, did you not read my post? Your second paragraph is exactly what I was saying.

Like it or not, it's an organization, if you're not willing to identify yourself with that organization why do you feel you have a say in how the organization proceeds.

I'm not willing to label myself D or R, so I don't feel any right to tell them who they should nominate.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

No, it's not. Some semi-open primaries welcome independents to vote, but do not allow individuals registered with other parties to vote.

As it currently stands, the likelihood of sabotage is just as high, if you're suggesting some conspiracy to vote in a lesser candidate. Most people don't think "I'm going to go vote for the other side's weaker candidate," and even if they do... they can currently already do that. Giving independents the ability to vote doesn't change that at all, and it's totally absurd to think that that would be the case.

And "like it or not" is not an argument, so don't use it as one. I'm fully aware of reality. That doesn't make it right. This is an argument against the structure and power of political parties. Blah blah blah George Washington, no political parties. As an independent I'm only given two options due to the consolidation of power from the two party system. Hell yes I should have the right to vote in the primaries without registering.

Either that, or those "organizations" shouldn't have the ability to consolidate power.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

No, it's not. Some semi-open primaries welcome independents to vote, but do not allow individuals registered with other parties to vote.

As it currently stands, the likelihood of sabotage is just as high, if you're suggesting some conspiracy to vote in a lesser candidate. Most people don't think "I'm going to go vote for the other side's weaker candidate," and even if they do... they can currently already do that. Giving independents the ability to vote doesn't change that at all, and it's totally absurd to think that that would be the case.

And "like it or not" is not an argument, so don't use it as one. I'm fully aware of reality. That doesn't make it right. This is an argument against the structure and power of political parties. Blah blah blah George Washington, no political parties. As an independent I'm only given two options due to the consolidation of power from the two party system. Hell yes I should have the right to vote in the primaries without registering.

Either that, or those "organizations" shouldn't have the ability to consolidate power.

I'm really not sure what you are arguing. Back in 2008 Limbaugh tried to get his listeners to change their registration so they could vote for Hillary in the primary and make her the candidate. If all primaries were open they wouldn't have to do that, they would just have to be independent. Then they can do that with every election. I don't know how else to explain.

You get no arguments from me on the two party system, but open primaries is not the answer.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by BVS

I'm really not sure what you are arguing. Back in 2008 Limbaugh tried to get his listeners to change their registration so they could vote for Hillary in the primary and make her the candidate. If all primaries were open they wouldn't have to do that, they would just have to be independent. Then they can do that with every election. I don't know how else to explain.

You get no arguments from me on the two party system, but open primaries is not the answer.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

1. Limbaugh's listeners are typically Republicans, not Independents
2. It's just as easy to register as a Democrat as it is to register as an Independent

So, Rush Limbaugh trying to convince his listeners to be rogue Democrats is essentially the same thing as him trying to convince them to be Independents.

That is, unless of course, you're suggesting that everyone would be an independent without closed primaries? If so, mission accomplished! You've taken the most important step in eliminating the two party system.

Honestly, though, this is totally moot to even be debating. Rush Limbaugh and his little tiny sabotage movement didn't do anything and wouldn't do anything were every primary to be open (a significant amount of them ARE open in some fashion). You can't produce any numbers to suggest that a significant portion of the population has voted in a primary for a candidate that they absolutely in no way shape or form would vote for in November. You can't, because it doesn't really happen.

[Hewson]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

We all know Bernie is in the pocket of Big Ice Cream.

Show us the Ben and Jerry's speeches!

New flavors for 2016:

Chocolate Chip He Took Their Dough

Pecan Sanders

Busted in DC Mocha

[BVS]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

1. Limbaugh's listeners are typically Republicans, not Independents
2. It's just as easy to register as a Democrat as it is to register as an Independent

So, Rush Limbaugh trying to convince his listeners to be rogue Democrats is essentially the same thing as him trying to convince them to be Independents.

That is, unless of course, you're suggesting that everyone would be an independent without closed primaries? If so, mission accomplished! You've taken the most important step in eliminating the two party system.

Honestly, though, this is totally moot to even be debating. Rush Limbaugh and his little tiny sabotage movement didn't do anything and wouldn't do anything were every primary to be open (a significant amount of them ARE open in some fashion). You can't produce any numbers to suggest that a significant portion of the population has voted in a primary for a candidate that they absolutely in no way shape or form would vote for in November. You can't, because it doesn't really happen.

I don't even know where to
begin :facepalm:





People register as a party because they are party people and because they want a say in how that party is ran.

If it was a four party system I'd say the same thing; if you don't choose a corner then you don't have a right in telling that corner who they choose. Period. You still have a right to vote in what direction the country is going. But if you're not a member of the party you don't have a right in telling that party anything.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by BVS

I don't even know where to
begin :facepalm:

Then don't. Your consistent method of berating my opinion as uneducated or foolish is annoying.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

Then don't. Your consistent method of berating my opinion as uneducated or foolish is annoying.

Honestly, it has absolutely nothing to do with your opinion. It was your complete misunderstanding, it came off as being purposely obtuse.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[anitram]

At least you guys can just basically declare yourselves as R or D and vote in the primaries if you comply with the rules.

Here you have to pay (it's a small fee but still) to join a party and then show up to vote when a riding elects a candidate. Basically nobody does this in Canada so we vote for whoever the riding foists on us, typically being insiders nominating one of their own. Now granted we don't vote for a president so it matters less but still fairly undemocratic.

[Mack_Again]

Originally Posted by BVS

I don't even know where to
begin :facepalm:

probably you should make set of axioms before constructing any systems of logic that seems to work pretty well considering the thousands of years of history in Math/logic.

[mikal]

I wonder who's feeling the burn tonight. This is a slaughtering.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[prbiker15]

I'm not even surprised.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by BVS

Honestly, it has absolutely nothing to do with your opinion. It was your complete misunderstanding, it came off as being purposely obtuse.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

This post is exactly my point. Thank you.