2016 Presidential Primaries [ SUPER TUESDAY | 3-1-'16]

Julio3000 said:
Hey, man, I'm probably more favorably disposed to your point of you then you will credit. If there was a supposed "tie," I would be ****ing shocked if the Clintons did not win it. Just as I would be shocked if the Bushes did not win a closely contested election… Sort of like in 2000.

But, really, is the coin flip thing for real, or isn't it? Or is it, you know, a case of confirmation bias? Is it legit, or is it just the narrative that you like because of your preconceived notions about Hills?
Click to expand...

I don't know - tell me. I scanned an article or two earlier. What's the full story? You've dismissed it it seems, so I take it you know.
 
sturg33 said:
I was hard on Bernie last night. He defeated one of the most powerful political families in the United States. He did so by being anti-American in many respects but there are some things he is right about and those deserved to be recognized.

Political elites do control the process too much. Money does influence power, it always has and always will. We need criminal justice reform, we simply put too many people in cages unnecessarily. We do spend too much on oversea military operations and get involved in far too many civil conflicts.
That's pretty much it. Everything else, he's a neurotic psychopath hellbent on destroying the American way of life and making us all equally poor.
Click to expand...

And from my admittedly outsider perspective it seem clear as a Summer day is long that the Clinton machine and Wasserman-Shultz (and POTUS I suppose) have determined that Hillary is the nominee. Everything else is just window dressing. Hope the Bernie crowd figures that out... Goldman Sachs wants their Hawkish gal in office.
 
sturg33 said:
12743582_1753094448252676_196566791690427991_n.jpg
Click to expand...

I have to admit, it is a bit ironic.
 
Runnin said:
I'm still trying to figure out why anybody ever thought he should run for President.
Click to expand...

Black, religious zealot, Fox News commentator. A number of reasons. He was a front runner for some time, until people actually started paying attention to him. Now anyone who would have considered voting for him has moved to Rubio or in much larger numbers Cruz.
 
zitothebrave said:
Black, religious zealot, Fox News commentator. A number of reasons. He was a front runner for some time, until people actually started paying attention to him. Now anyone who would have considered voting for him has moved to Rubio or in much larger numbers Cruz.
Click to expand...

He also likes to revise history, which doesn't hurt his chances. Still though Carson comes across to me as an affable person, even if you don't agree with him. Rubio seems nice enough too on a personal level, he just reminds me of a college QB who does great in college games but when he gets to the pros and a smart defensive coordinator changes the looks, the coverages, the blitz packages, etc., when somebody hits him with something he hasn't seen/heard before he just kinda freezes and looks confused. I think, like a college QB he'll grow out of that, if he survives (in politics) long enough. Cruz just looks like a villain in a movie who hasn't shown his true nature yet. He's still in that "hey look at me, I'm the good guy here", sort of like Snidely Whiplash without the 'stache.
 
57Brave said:
actually, they are telling you and showing you how they are trying to rig the system. Before, they didn't even try.
So yeah, guess you could call it fake sunshine

Getting the sense you will vote for Sanders
Click to expand...

Well the Repubs were pretty damn blatant in how they screwed Ron Paul and his supporters out of a chance to be heard a few years back. I guess subtlety is already dead and buried by now. No point in even trying to pretend anymore huh?
 
Not to sanction the (D) process but these have been the rules of the game. I frankly don't understand how delegates are awarded in my state let alone each state.
The Super Delegates have been in place for , to my knowledge, at least the past two election cycles. Didn't hinder Obama !

Let me remind you, Gore received more popular votes than Bush43 and (D) House of Rep candidates received more votes than (R) nationally.
There are so many antiquated voting process - where to start. Electoral College, Gerrymandering districts , voting access etc etc etc.

Personally I am more troubled by voting restrictions and registration access . Every citizen should have an unquestioned vote. (or two)
 
zitothebrave said:
Black, religious zealot, Fox News commentator. A number of reasons. He was a front runner for some time, until people actually started paying attention to him. Now anyone who would have considered voting for him has moved to Rubio or in much larger numbers Cruz.
Click to expand...
I had heard about his for years from people I respected and expected a lot more. He seems burned out, like the grind of campaigning was too much for him.
 
BedellBrave said:
I don't know - tell me. I scanned an article or two earlier. What's the full story? You've dismissed it it seems, so I take it you know.
Click to expand...

I don't know. Because of the quaint, archaic, and non-transparent process, I think it's safe to assume that neither one of us knows. According to what's been reported, each candidate won coin flips approximately commensurate with what one would expect. Due to the fuzziness of the reporting, I can't say for sure. But that's the difference, isn't it? Neither one of us can say for sure, but I'm not willing to make a snarky allegation about something that I can't back up with facts.

My bottom line is, I think, not unlike yours. I think that we are going to end up with a choice of candidates in the general election who are, coincidentally or not, those favored of Wall Street and the monied interests.

However, that doesn't mean that I'm going to choose a narrative that fits my preconceived notions absent any evidence. I have decidedly mixed--even ambivalent--feelings about the Clintons that are based wholly upon things that I have observed and can be considered objectively true.

I'm content with those reasons, thanks, and don't need them validated by conspiracy theories.

As for electoral reform? Yes, please. As much and as soon as possible. It's been one of the biggest concerns of mine for years. Voter access, ease of voting, campaign finance reform, redistricting...all of it needs a look.
 
Runnin said:
I had heard about his for years from people I respected and expected a lot more. He seems burned out, like the grind of campaigning was too much for him.
Click to expand...

I think he's going to stay in through SC just to try to stick it to Cruz.
 
The system is more transparent than it was pre-Watergate (which prompted a number of reforms), but that doesn't necessarily make it more open. I think of the super-delegates as secular bishops. They may give one side or the other a leg up on the competition, but as 2008 showed, they are no slam dunk for the establishment.
 
57Brave said:
actually, they are telling you and showing you how they are trying to rig the system. Before, they didn't even try.
So yeah, guess you could call it fake sunshine

Getting the sense you will vote for Sanders
Click to expand...

It's growing more likely that I won't vote for POTUS.
 
Julio3000 said:
I don't know. Because of the quaint, archaic, and non-transparent process, I think it's safe to assume that neither one of us knows. According to what's been reported, each candidate won coin flips approximately commensurate with what one would expect. Due to the fuzziness of the reporting, I can't say for sure. But that's the difference, isn't it? Neither one of us can say for sure, but I'm not willing to make a snarky allegation about something that I can't back up with facts.

My bottom line is, I think, not unlike yours. I think that we are going to end up with a choice of candidates in the general election who are, coincidentally or not, those favored of Wall Street and the monied interests.

However, that doesn't mean that I'm going to choose a narrative that fits my preconceived notions absent any evidence. I have decidedly mixed--even ambivalent--feelings about the Clintons that are based wholly upon things that I have observed and can be considered objectively true.

I'm content with those reasons, thanks, and don't need them validated by conspiracy theories.

As for electoral reform? Yes, please. As much and as soon as possible. It's been one of the biggest concerns of mine for years. Voter access, ease of voting, campaign finance reform, redistricting...all of it needs a look.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call it so much a conspiracy, but rather a deeply desired coronation plan within the powers that be in the DNC. It's fairly out in the open.

I recognize that I'm much less the fan of Hillary than you as a D would be. You've got a more vested interest in seeing your team win.
 
50PoundHead said:
The system is more transparent than it was pre-Watergate (which prompted a number of reforms), but that doesn't necessarily make it more open. I think of the super-delegates as secular bishops. They may give one side or the other a leg up on the competition, but as 2008 showed, they are no slam dunk for the establishment.
Click to expand...

Especially if there's a new play toy out there like Obama was for them. They ain't going for an old, white, Vermont socialist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top