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

goldfly said:
"super delegates" can change "their vote" whenever they want to

weird that super delegates are being talked about so much this time when just like Obama

Bernie is trailing early to the same person

but the SD's switched once it seemed the people wanted Obama 7 years ago
Click to expand...

She's using those delegates to claim victory before anyone racks up enough delegates bound by the popular vote. Will media go along with it?
 
the popular vote rules the day in most everything except national elections

even the delegates secured during the primary are only bound to the first ballot
 
50PoundHead said:
The article doesn't answer my point. Instead of making a difficult and serious choice when faced with what he terms "evil," he opted to throw his vote away. That's his prerogative, as it was when folks voted for Barry Commoner, John Anderson, Ross Perot, Ralph Nader and chose to basically remove themselves from the solving of problems facing the nation. I'm not arguing that there isn't an elemental moral purpose that binds humanity, but you're never going to find that in politics, which is utilitarian in nature. You can only fill so many physical (and emotional) bellies and not everyone gets what they believe or, may actually, deserve. That's the nature of the game.

But my primary point still remains and Moore simply shrugs that "we'll never have a perfect candidate." In that statement, he insinuates that he is standing above the fray in some sort of demi-god status. Of course we'll never have a perfect candidate. We are all swimming in sin and we all need to be cognizant of that as we develop our stances to remedy the thorny problems facing the nation and the world. Balancing our self-interest with the needs of society as a whole is part of the social contract.

And Moore needs to check his history. Lincoln was a former Whig and the Whig party dissolved six years before he ran for President in 1860.
Click to expand...

1. You asked if he ever voted - of course.

2. I deny your premise that not voting for a party's candidate is throwing your vote away. It's throwing it away only if you think that having a particular party win is the only legitimate purpose of exercising civic duty. It's only throwing it away if there is no higher authority than your team by which to judge your vote.

3. It's not all a game - again, I deny your whole view of the matter. If I were a secularist, your argument holds more weight. I'm not.

4. Moore obviously isn't cavalierly saying that he has to have a perfect candidate to vote for. He is saying that from his worldview, under the Lordship of Christ he can neither vote for the candidate that is baldly advocating war-crimes and a nativist-xenophobia nor for the one who advocates pro-death-abortion culture. Neither can I nor will I. Disagree if you'd like. But it is my conscience. I won't have the Republicans or the Democrats bind it. Caesar isn't Lord.

5. 50, ask yourself if you have any line. Is there any "evil" that is too far for you? You disagree with Moore's line and my line. Do you have one yourself?
 
The Don said:
Makes me wonder how much money was wasted donated to Ron Paul's multiple Presidential campaigns.
Click to expand...

I think the money was worth it to start the race... like Julio mentioned, getting the message in the race is important.

But Bernie has no viable path to victory at this point... I'd cut off the funding if it were my money
 
interesting story Crimson

local talk radio has little use for Rubio or Jeb for that matter - they are Cruz /Trump- Rick Scott non stop and turning their noses up at a Rubio for Governor run.
Like everything else this election cycle, going to believe it when I see it.
 
Breitbart Rolls Over After Reporter ‘Grabbed’ by Trump Aide
A day after its political reporter was manhandled by the candidate’s campaign manager in front of witnesses, the Trump-friendly news outlet has offered only the mildest of rebukes.

The reality television billionaire might also be laying the groundwork for a not-so-brave new world in which a campaign manager can assault a female journalist, while her news organization—in this case the famously Trump-friendly Breitbart News—responds with a mild rebuke in a vague statement perceived by some to be designed to protect the perpetrator.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ver-after-reporter-grabbed-by-trump-aide.html
 
CrimsonCowboy said:
Chump's team calling Michelle Fields and Breitbart liars.
[TW]708003221139140608[/TW]
Click to expand...

well, Breitbart news are lairs

but that release is shameful at best

he really wants to be a dictator and anyone who questions anything is an enemy and will bully them until they shut up or are dealt with

it's scary that this is a front runner for a major party
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top