Trump! Making a mockery of the GOP

https://img0.etsystatic.com/124/0/10628259/il_fullxfull.950456686_7f58.jpg

@wmwcjr,

I find it funny and all and even thumbed them all up, but you may be nearing a spammish sort of aura with it.

At least discuss it a little.

0 Replies

@Builder,

Builder wrote:

So you accept the status-quo of the oligarchy, in that you must choose the lesser of two evils?

It's not my position to attack you personally, because Australians are being shunted in this direction, but at this point in the history of the world, we have a power that most are only now becoming aware of, and that power is knowledge.

We know how corrupted the system has become, and we have the choice to cowtow to what we are told to do, or stand firm, and say NO!.

You've chosen conformity.

Actually american polls and primaries choose. All candidates have a fair shot of capturing public attention. Its not my fault some of the most fanatical only come out to vote in the primaries. Noone is stopping the others from trying.

1 Reply

@Lilkanyon,

Lilkanyon wrote:

Builder wrote:

Quote:
Umm, isnt that what voting is about?

Okay, so there's fifteen parties (rhetorically speaking) and the press only recognises two parties. Does that mean the other thirteen parties don't exist?

That's what a democracy is all about; everybody having a representative in a position of bargaining power.

What we have today, is two parties, who pretend for a brief period, to represent some of the people, but after election, go back to representing donors and corporate sponsors.

Yep and yep. Trump nor Bernie gonna change that. We are a society run by big corp and pray our children survive it before it crashes like communism. Thats how much faith I have. But I sure as hell wont give it totally over to big corp like Trump. Say what you will about Clinton, but shes the bridge between the two, like it or not.

Tbh? I think America has confused celebrity apprentice, House of cards, game of thrones, and survior with this years election and its ******* humiliating!

0 Replies

@Lilkanyon,

Quote:

Actually american polls and primaries choose.

What I'm seeing, is that polls and primaries don't choose; superdelegates choose, which makes voting obsolete, and thinking people know this.

1 Reply

@Builder,

Builder wrote:

Quote:
Actually american polls and primaries choose.

What I'm seeing, is that polls and primaries don't choose; superdelegates choose, which makes voting obsolete, and thinking people know this.

No, its not as stupid as the sore loser candidates pretend it to be. The delegates primarily go with the votes of the people and the superdelagates double up on that...but im no expert on the subject. Far as I know, the super delagates (which are democrat only) go with the vote of the people.

1 Reply

@Lilkanyon,

Quote:

Far as I know, the super delagates (which are democrat only) go with the vote of the people.

Then why are we hearing a completely opposite story in the press?

Quote:

The primary process is a race for delegates and - on the Democratic side - superdelegates. Of the 2,382 delegates needed to win the nomination, most are obtained in the primary voting or caucus process. But 712 of the delegates are superdelegates, and they are from the party establishment. They consist of governors, senators, members of the House, members of the Democratic National Committee and former presidents. They can choose whichever candidate they like.

Article here.

2 Replies

@Builder,

Builder wrote:

Quote:
Far as I know, the super delagates (which are democrat only) go with the vote of the people.

Then why are we hearing a completely opposite story in the press?

Quote:
The primary process is a race for delegates and - on the Democratic side - superdelegates. Of the 2,382 delegates needed to win the nomination, most are obtained in the primary voting or caucus process. But 712 of the delegates are superdelegates, and they are from the party establishment. They consist of governors, senators, members of the House, members of the Democratic National Committee and former presidents. They can choose whichever candidate they like.

Article here.

Yes true, but rare they vote against the primary voters...thats the hoodoo going on with Trump. Sanders is not respecting the wins Clinton has gained and hoping to flip the will of the people. That rarely happens. Its why I call him a sore loser and whiner.

1 Reply

@Lilkanyon,

Quote:

Yes true, but rare they vote against the primary voters...thats the hoodoo going on with Trump.

Doesn't appear to be rare at all.

And you just said that super delegates aren't part of the process in the Republican party, which actually fielded more than a few potential candidates, as opposed to Hillary being the only D candidate, with Sanders' popularity making him a late second choice.

Still doesn't add up to a democratic process.

2 Replies

@Builder,

Builder wrote:

Quote:
Yes true, but rare they vote against the primary voters...thats the hoodoo going on with Trump.

Doesn't appear to be rare at all.

And you just said that super delegates aren't part of the process in the Republican party, which actually fielded more than a few potential candidates, as opposed to Hillary being the only D candidate, with Sanders' popularity making him a late second choice.

Still doesn't add up to a democratic process.

Superdelagtes are not split between repubs and dems...they are dem only...and how they came about I am no expert on. The superdelagtes do no effect the Rep nominee is what I am trying to say. They also have no impact on the general election. So, yes...they are the creme de le creme of who decides the democrate nominee but they go with the caucus or primary voter winners usually. None of them really want to rock the boat. Sanders hopes they will...but its very very unlikely.

2 Replies

@Lilkanyon,

Here's how it looks from the outside of the nation; Hillary was the only Dem candidate, and Sanders a late contender. Whenever Sanders appeared to gain the majority of the popular votes (people and ordinary delegates) the supers stepped in to give it to their preferred (and only) candidate.

Trump, by way of appealing to rather base hate and fear trigger-points, and despite early disapproval from the GOP, received so many popular votes, that the GOP basically had to switch to approval of the Don.

That's as simple as I can make it.

4 Replies

@Builder,

The selection of the NOMINEE does not have to be democratic at all. Want to know why we make a big deal of the conventions on TV with all the celebrations? Because originally the national conventions were where all the party leaders from all the states got together to bargain and choose for the party's nominee. There were no state primaries, there were no state caucuses. Then some states held primary elections, party members only, to choose who the state would vote for on the first round of the balloting at the convention. By 1968, though, only 12 states had primaries. In all the other states, the party leaders went to the convention to bargain for the presidential nominee.

An American's right to vote is only for the vote in November. On Election Day in November your choice is either
A. Write your candidate's name in,
B. Vote for the nominee of one of the parties. How that party chose that nominee is the party's business. The voter gets to choose which party's nominee he/she wants, regardless of how the nominee was selected. That's what makes the vote democratic.

2 Replies

@Blickers,

Quote:

How that party chose that nominee is the party's business. The voter gets to choose which party's nominee he/she wants, regardless of how the nominee was selected. That's what makes the vote democratic.

That's much the same as the Westminster system here. Though we still get to vote for independents and minor parties.

1 Reply

@Builder,

You can vote for minor parties here. In presidential years, there are several different parties' candidates on the ballot. And you can also write in the name of your choice.

0 Replies

@Builder,

Builder wrote:

Here's how it looks from the outside of the nation; Hillary was the only Dem candidate, and Sanders a late contender. Whenever Sanders appeared to gain the majority of the popular votes (people and ordinary delegates) the supers stepped in to give it to their preferred (and only) candidate.

That's as simple as I can make it.

God, it's amazing how SIMPLY wrong you are.

0 Replies

@Lilkanyon,

Lilkanyon wrote:

Superdelagtes are not split between repubs and dems...they are dem only..

Republicans have their own version of superdelegates, but I think they have fewer of them, and they have less autonomy.

Edit:
http://www.bustle.com/articles/141611-does-the-gop-have-superdelegates-the-republican-partys-nomination-rules-are-different-this-year

Quote:

The GOP, however, has decided to establish fewer superdelegates than the Democrats. In the Republican Party, the only people who get superdelegate status are the three members of each state's national party. This means that in the GOP, superdelegates are only about 7 percent of the total number of delegates.

The more important distinction, though, is that Republican superdelegates do not have the freedom to vote for whichever candidate they please. The Republican National Committee ruled in 2015 that their superdelegates must vote for the candidate that their state voted for, and that's the biggest difference between Republican and Democratic superdelegates.

0 Replies

@Builder,

Builder wrote:

Here's how it looks from the outside of the nation; Hillary was the only Dem candidate, and Sanders a late contender. Whenever Sanders appeared to gain the majority of the popular votes (people and ordinary delegates) the supers stepped in to give it to their preferred (and only) candidate.
...
That's as simple as I can make it.

It's interesting that you perceive it that way. In reality, Sanders was not a late entrant, he was there before the first primary. In fact, there were other Democratic nominees as well, but they did not survive the first group of primaries. The first Democratic debate in October featured Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Jim Webb, Martin O'Malley, and Lincoln Chafee. The super delegates did not weigh in when Sanders would take the lead because he has trailed in both votes and elected delegates since the Nevada primary. Many of the "supers" were on board with Clinton before the first vote was cast. That is a legitimate Sanders gripe (although Sanders has also failed to make headway with the uncommitted super delegates) but if super delegates didn't exist, Clinton would still win since she's won most of the states and the popular vote.

0 Replies

@Builder,

Hillary is leading in the regular delegate count.
Hillary is leading in the Super delegate count.

It looks like the Super delegates are going where the regular delegates are.

2 Replies

@parados,

What would happen if Sanders wins New Jersey and California?
Wouldn't the super delegates start thinking if they bet the wrong horse?
Could it change in favor to Sanders?
Everything is possible in this race, me thinks!

4 Replies

@CalamityJane,

Sanders would have to win by a huge (unheard of, really) margin in order to make up the deficit in pledged delegates.

He might gain some ground, but the likelyhood of actually overtaking Clinton is extremely remote.

0 Replies

Trump! Making a mockery of the GOP

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know