If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
My instincts tell me a video is not the best place to start this learning process.
Far be it for me to try and educate anyone about anything. That was just an amusing example of fascist-like behavior. Here's an accompanying article for anyone who's interested:
My instincts tell me a video is not the best place to start this learning process.
The advocates of free speech blocked the entrances and when they realized people were still getting in, they pulled the fire alarm. (AKA yelling fire in a crowed theater)
(
Last edited by Chongo; Mar 10, 2016 at 09:59 PM.
)
Far be it for me to try and educate anyone about anything. That was just an amusing example of fascist-like behavior. Here's an accompanying article for anyone who's interested:
But i suspect we're veering way off topic here again.
While part of me wants to point out that this is an example of many types of wrong, it's not really an example of facism, I've come to the realisation that 'facism' no longer has any real meaning beyond 'extreme views I don't agree with.' This is just as much an example of facism as the 100,000+ other occasions it has been incorrectly used, so go with it.
While part of me wants to point out that this is an example of many types of wrong, it's not really an example of facism, I've come to the realisation that 'facism' no longer has any real meaning beyond 'extreme views I don't agree with.' This is just as much an example of facism as the 100,000+ other occasions it has been incorrectly used, so go with it.
From my observation, it isn't about left/right when it comes to fascism. One symptom/indicator i tend to associate with fascism, is violence.
FWIW, this 60 second clip sums up my personal views pretty closely (generally speaking):
Edit: Forgot, a significant amount are authoritarians.
Addendum: There's also a high correlation with the economically disenfranchised (i.e., blue collar workers with no job prospects). This might best explain how trump wins a significant percentage of the evangelical vote despite his irreligiousness
I see Sanders and Hillary advocating populist policies, for no-income and low-income groups (and any other victim groups), by advocating class warfare and saying they will tax the rich and corporations more and give those groups the benefits or such policies. And people who have no problem with taking government handouts will flock to said candidates; i suppose it explains their popularity.
About two-thirds of Republican primary voters in all five states voting Tuesday support temporarily banning non-citizen Muslims from entering the United States, but majorities in all five say they want immigrants already in the United States illegally to be allowed a chance to stay.
...we should also set-up internment camps for muslims that are already here.
After tonight, there are two options: Trump pulls together 1237 by the last primary, or there is a contested convention. Even if Trump does it, it will be down to the wire - I don't think he can reach the target until the California votes are counted.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
Even if he does do it the RNC could change the rules preconvention. I think that's the most unlikely option, but this has been a season full of surprises.
An interesting wrinkle, but I fail to see how it matters. Say that Trump wins 1236 delegates (or whatever) and nobody else receives support of the majority of eight states or territories. That means that there is only one candidate in the first vote - Trump - but he does not have a majority of the votes, so he doesn't win. Then there is a contested convention, and the bidding wars begin. At that point, the delegates can decide to nominate who they like, and anyone who plans to win needs the support of a majority of delegates anyway. All it prevents is someone gathering every single vote from the seven biggest delegations and going to vote with that, and I don't think that would be enough for a majority anyway?
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
Rule 40 was implemented just prior to the convention to block Ron Paul in 2012. Setting the ground rules after the votes have been cast is incredibly dirty. Anyway the point is they can rescind that prior to the convention.
I'm amazed at the sheer numbers of Dems crossing party lines to vote for Drumph in the primaries. They know he can't win the general, too many people simply hate him, so they're temporarily propping him up for defeat. While I have to admire their conviction, in a way, one has to admit it's pretty dirty.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I'm amazed at the sheer numbers of Dems crossing party lines to vote for Drumph in the primaries. They know he can't win the general, too many people simply hate him, so they're temporarily propping him up for defeat. While I have to admire their conviction, in a way, one has to admit it's pretty dirty.
The scale of it (over 2 million estimated, nationwide) is unprecedented. The Left's media outlets are even proud of it, and giving explicit instructions on how to do it. I simply find it distasteful, it turns the entire process into a farce.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I'm amazed at the sheer numbers of Dems crossing party lines to vote for Drumph in the primaries. They know he can't win the general, too many people simply hate him, so they're temporarily propping him up for defeat. While I have to admire their conviction, in a way, one has to admit it's pretty dirty.
That's a complete non-argument for me: claims that this is an issue isn't new and political parties themselves decide whether or not they want to have open primaries or not. Having open primaries means you want input of non-Republicans when selecting the GOP presidential candidate (e. g. to make the candidate more electable in a mass election), but you need to accept the downsides. But keeping the primaries open and then bitching about it is disingenuous.
More importantly, though, the Trump phenomenon is certainly not due to droves of Democrats skewing the Republican primaries by voting for a candidate they hate.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
The scale of it (over 2 million estimated, nationwide) is unprecedented. The Left's media outlets are even proud of it, and giving explicit instructions on how to do it. I simply find it distasteful, it turns the entire process into a farce.
Oh dear. First off, no one with any credibility is estimating over 2m. Trump has received ~5.6m votes in open primaries so far. Over 1/3 of his support is not from liberal trouble makers- we know the polls are not 100% accurate, but even the worst ones are not that far out.
Secondly, one post by Jesse Jackman, Huffington Post Blogger (and according to his byline, Devoted husband, senior software engineer, geek savant, and gay adult film star) saying how he is planing on tactically voting does demonstrate the "Left's media outlets" being proud of this practice en mass.
In contrast, in the Obama v Clinton primary, you have an actual example of of partisan media interfering and turning the 'process into a farce."
Operation Chaos was an actual, coordinated effort by an actual leading right-wing media personality (Limbaugh) to pervert the integrity of the democratic primary.
Anything our side can do your side can do dirtier and with far less shame.
... and giving explicit instructions on how to do it.
As a side note, I can't help but wonder if this statement is an example of your penchant for hyperbole or and example of you not actually reading your own sources. His 'explicit instructions' basically amount to 'I live in Massachusetts where they have an open primary. I'm a liberal but I'm voting for Trump.' Yeah, he really gets in to the minutiae.
I'm amazed at the sheer numbers of Dems crossing party lines to vote for Drumph in the primaries. They know he can't win the general, too many people simply hate him, so they're temporarily propping him up for defeat. While I have to admire their conviction, in a way, one has to admit it's pretty dirty.
I'd like to see some more info on those Dems before I buy a concerted effort. They could be Kim Davis style Dems, or politically disillusioned voters who Trump seems to have struck a cord with. I also have to be convinced the numbers were statistically significant in the states where they occurred.
All that aside, I agree it's dirty politics, as it undermines an already flawed system further. Everyone already feels railroaded into a lesser of two evils choice without the integrity of the system being undermined.
Maybe a better primary system can come out of this debacle. I doubt Trump would have survived ranked choice as well.
That's a complete non-argument for me: claims that this is an issue isn't new and political parties themselves decide whether or not they want to have open primaries or not. Having open primaries means you want input of non-Republicans when selecting the GOP presidential candidate (e. g. to make the candidate more electable in a mass election), but you need to accept the downsides. But keeping the primaries open and then bitching about it is disingenuous.
More importantly, though, the Trump phenomenon is certainly not due to droves of Democrats skewing the Republican primaries by voting for a candidate they hate.
"It's technically allowed, so it's fine. There's no way a fractionalized race, where no clear majority of voters is claimed by anyone, can be influenced by opposing party members trying to game the system." Is that what you're saying? Because my assertion is that the spirit of the process is being violated.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
"It's technically allowed, so it's fine. There's no way a fractionalized race, where no clear majority of voters is claimed by anyone, can be influenced by opposing party members trying to game the system." Is that what you're saying? Because my assertion is that the spirit of the process is being violated.
No, this is not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that it's in the hands of the GOP itself to decide whether or not they want their primaries to be open or closed, and they have to take responsibility for it. And that it's disingenuous to keep them open but bitch about “Democratic agitators screwing with their process”. It's not as if such claims of undue influence on the GOP primaries by non-Republicans is new. So if the GOP decides that their primary rules allow Independents and/or Democrats to vote, then they have to accept the obvious downsides of that. But evidently the GOP in these states think that the upsides outweigh the downsides, for otherwise they'd change their rules.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Does the GOP pick whether it's an open primary or is it the legislature?
States determine the ground rules for elections themselves, but they are of course bound by federal requirements. The US Supreme Court has ruled against state mandates of closed or open primaries, though. (Note that in the first case, it was the Republican Party in Connecticut arguing for an open primary to allow independents to vote in theirs.) I am not sure whether there are states which are able to mandate only one type of primary against the wishes of either the Democratic or the Republican Party.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Anywhere from 60-65% of GOP voters don't support Trump. He's simultaneously ahead in the nomination fight but is also the most unpopular candidate. If Trump doesn't win the nomination outright ... which seems to be more likely than not ... imagine a scenario where a brokered convention results in Trump being denied the nomination even if he's ahead. Given his outsized ego Trump probably won't take that lying down and instead will bolt the GOP and make a third-party run in the general election. Which will be precisely what the GOP Establishment wants. In this scenario it's possible no one is able to secure the 270 Electoral College votes needed to win the Presidency. So per the Constitution the House of Representatives gets to decide regardless of the popular vote. And the House is controlled by the GOP so the Establishment gets its preferred candidate in the White House. And possibly retains control of of both chambers in Congress as well.
Does the GOP pick whether it's an open primary or is it the legislature?
Yeah, it sounds like the states themselves choose, not the party. So blaming the party for people doing this is a little absurd.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Anywhere from 60-65% of GOP voters don't support Trump. He's simultaneously ahead in the nomination fight but is also the most unpopular candidate. If Trump doesn't win the nomination outright ... which seems to be more likely than not ... imagine a scenario where a brokered convention results in Trump being denied the nomination even if he's ahead. Given his outsized ego Trump probably won't take that lying down and instead will bolt the GOP and make a third-party run in the general election. Which will be precisely what the GOP Establishment wants. In this scenario it's possible no one is able to secure the 270 Electoral College votes needed to win the Presidency. So per the Constitution the House of Representatives gets to decide regardless of the popular vote. And the House is controlled by the GOP so the Establishment gets its preferred candidate in the White House. And possibly retains control of of both chambers in Congress as well.
Thoughts?
OAW
That plan only works if Trump's support were focused in some part of the country. Had that been the case, he could have won a few states in that region while the establishment candidate would focus elsewhere. That way, Trump might win some states in his area, while Dems and establishment GOP split the rest and nobody reaches 270.
That is not what Trumps support looks like, however. He has some support all over the country, so a serious third party campaign would bleed off GOP support in "safe" red states to the point where Dems might pick them up. This terminology about red and blue states obscure the fact that "safe" doesn't mean "overwhelming support". Just for an example, in the 2012 election, Romney won Texas 57-41. Trump is polling at 27% there right now. Remove 27% of the GOP votes and it is a dead heat - and there are many states more competitive than Texas.
The only way this plan works is if Trump's support is actually bigger among Democrats than among Replublicans - and if it is, no more maneuvering is necessary. Trump will just win the whole thing outright. There is no evidence that that is the case, however.
Also note that the vote where the House decides a presidential election is no regular vote. The state delegations meet first to discuss and then vote as one, and whomever has the support of 26 or more state delegations is elected president.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
Thanks for the input! Especially the state delegation vote part. That provision is so obscure I did not realize it worked that way. And it certainly changes the game.
"Mr. Sanders found a welcome tableau in the largely white and liberal electorates of the Pacific Northwest, where just days after resoundingly beating Mrs. Clinton in Idaho he repeated the feat in the Washington caucuses, winning 73 percent of the vote. He did even better in Alaska, winning 82 percent of the vote, and in Hawaii, he had 71 percent with a few precincts still be counted, according to The Associated Press."
Holy crap, that's quite a pasting. Go, go, Bernie!
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I see Sanders and Hillary advocating populist policies, for no-income and low-income groups (and any other victim groups), by advocating class warfare and saying they will tax the rich and corporations more and give those groups the benefits or such policies. And people who have no problem with taking government handouts will flock to said candidates; i suppose it explains their popularity.
This line of reasoning is tiresome.
Being interested in curbing the abuses of extremely wealthy corporations (e.g. buying politicians) does not necessarily equate to pushing for more handouts. This is simply trying to change political goalposts with this false association.
All three remaining GOP candidates have just reneged on their previous pledge to support the eventual GOP nominee. This is about to get really ugly ....
That plan only works if Trump's support were focused in some part of the country.
Also, even at the off chance the GOP manages to not elect Trump but their own candidate, this candidate is Ted Cruz. AFAIK the only senator who endorsed him is Lindsey Graham, the same Lindsey Graham who likened a Trump vs. Cruz race as a choice between being shot and getting poisoned. So it's a lose-lose-lose proposition for the GOP.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Guys, guys, I think it's important to keep perspective here. Yes, there's been talk of a contested convention for weeks, yes the GOP hates the second choice, and yes the pledge seems dead, but Bernie is beating Hillary in some states and a loud minority of his voters want no part of her or the Democratic Party, so they're in just as bad shape.
Go, go, Bernie!
Top