US Election 2016

[Valsuelm]

 

 

Apparently you can't be on a lot of state ballots as an independent once you were on the ballot as a Republican,

 

Source?

 

 

They are called Sore Loser Laws (they apply equally to both parties not just Republicans).  45 states have them; Arizona, Delaware, New York, Oklahoma and West Virginia do not.   To clarify things, it doesn't apply to states that did not hold a presidential primary or in a large number of states with existing precedents that clearly establish that they do NOT apply to presidential elections.  There are two states where it might matter: Texas and South Dakota and that's even assuming that one of the candidates who doesn't secure his nomination has the stones to declare and run as an independent.     

 

 

Thanks. I was actually unaware of the proliferation of such laws. Though, they are not surprising. Sad that Ron Paul didn't make a lot of noise about them last election go around (sad that he didn't do a number of things). Ah well.

 

Here's a decent article summing up just some of what's wrong with such laws:

http://www.rangevoting.org/BallAccess.html

 

There are very few issues that I say this:

 

A Constitutional Amendment to prohibit such laws is needed. The party system is corrupt as #uck, and the choke hold that the two major parties have on this nation is indeed ultimately going to prove fatal to it.

 

Will we ever get such an amendment? Sadly, very doubtful.

Edited April 9, 2016 by Valsuelm

[Hurlshort]

I'm pretty chafed by the lack of respect for Ghengis Khan in this thread, but I'm going to try and let it go.  

[Wrath of Dagon]

Anyone who's been played by John Wayne can't be all bad.

[Namutree]

I'm pretty chafed by the lack of respect for Ghengis Khan in this thread, but I'm going to try and let it go.  

Genghis Khan was a rapist and encouraged his men to rape. He'll get no respect from me.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Namutree

[Leferd]

 

I'm pretty chafed by the lack of respect for Ghengis Khan in this thread, but I'm going to try and let it go.  

 

Genghis Khan was a rapist and encouraged his men to rape. He'll get no respect from me.

Well, since 1 out of 200 people in the world are his direct descendants, many of us should feel #blessed to be alive.

 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/08/1-in-200-men-direct-descendants-of-genghis-khan/

[Zoraptor]

I'm being triggered by your cultural appropriation, guys. Chinggis Han is the one true transliteration, G*****s K**n is deeply offensive.

 

(Subotai4eva)

 

In off topic news Bernie won Wyoming but got the same number of delegates as Hillary.

[Meshugger]

I'm being triggered by your cultural appropriation, guys. Chinggis Han is the one true transliteration, G*****s K**n is deeply offensive.

 

(Subotai4eva)

 

In off topic news Bernie won Wyoming but got the same number of delegates as Hillary.

 

Subotai was easily triggered though, "don't kill the messanger" and all that. 

 

Link for the Wyoming caucus http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/wyoming

 

It seems like a state were they don't believe in losers and give the same delegate amount either way.

[Longknife]

I'm pretty chafed by the lack of respect for Ghengis Khan in this thread, but I'm going to try and let it go.  

 

 

I'd vote for Ghengis. He'd kill both Hillary and Trump (literally and in the polls), impregnate every woman on the west coast and unite the Mongols. Sounds like a natural born leader to me.

[Bartimaeus]

I mean, I very much respect Genghis Khan and certain Roman Emperors and certain Holy Roman Emperors and Attila and Stalin and Hitler and Napoleon and...in a few certain ways (and some in more, and some in less, ways and to differing degrees than others). In most other ways, most of these people were truly horrifying and literally frightening people who deserve their own very special place in hell. The latter pretty much always outweighs the former when speaking of them except in but a very few contexts.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[Valsuelm]

Boston Globe's front page covered in propagandic BS.

 

Yes, I know, this isn't anything new. This time however, they're actually admitting it's BS.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

I'm being triggered by your cultural appropriation, guys. Chinggis Han is the one true transliteration, G*****s K**n is deeply offensive.

 

(Subotai4eva)

 

In off topic news Bernie won Wyoming but got the same number of delegates as Hillary.

 

 

Subotai was easily triggered though, "don't kill the messanger" and all that. 

 

Link for the Wyoming caucus http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/wyoming

 

It seems like a state were they don't believe in losers and give the same delegate amount either way.

 

He's going to crash the convention with no survivors.

[Longknife]

He's a storm and a Disney Princess? I'm still trying to wrap my head around why so many people aren't voting for him. Not many people have those two things on their resume.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

I'm being triggered by your cultural appropriation, guys. Chinggis Han is the one true transliteration, G*****s K**n is deeply offensive.

 

(Subotai4eva)

 

In off topic news Bernie won Wyoming but got the same number of delegates as Hillary.

 

Subotai was easily triggered though, "don't kill the messanger" and all that. 

 

Link for the Wyoming caucus http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/wyoming

 

It seems like a state were they don't believe in losers and give the same delegate amount either way.

 

Sounds like Socialism to me.

[Gromnir]

 

 

I'm pretty chafed by the lack of respect for Ghengis Khan in this thread, but I'm going to try and let it go.  

Genghis Khan was a rapist and encouraged his men to rape. He'll get no respect from me.

Well, since 1 out of 200 people in the world are his direct descendants, many of us should feel #blessed to be alive.

 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/08/1-in-200-men-direct-descendants-of-genghis-khan/

 

one o' the best movie scenes evar is a bastardization o' a genghis khan quote

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEpsVSdtfcc

 

w/o gk we got not the above scene.  now that would be a tragedy.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited April 11, 2016 by Gromnir

[Hurlshort]

I mean, I very much respect Genghis Khan and certain Roman Emperors and certain Holy Roman Emperors and Attila and Stalin and Hitler and Napoleon and...in a few certain ways (and some in more, and some in less, ways and to differing degrees than others). In most other ways, most of these people were truly horrifying and literally frightening people who deserve their own very special place in hell. The latter pretty much always outweighs the former when speaking of them except in but a very few contexts.

We always need to be cautious when looking at historical figures to not use a modern lense.

[BruceVC]

 

I mean, I very much respect Genghis Khan and certain Roman Emperors and certain Holy Roman Emperors and Attila and Stalin and Hitler and Napoleon and...in a few certain ways (and some in more, and some in less, ways and to differing degrees than others). In most other ways, most of these people were truly horrifying and literally frightening people who deserve their own very special place in hell. The latter pretty much always outweighs the former when speaking of them except in but a very few contexts.

We always need to be cautious when looking at historical figures to not use a modern lense.

 

You funny  

 

It reminds me of something kids get taught at school......Baro if you unclear ask  me to explain, its no isssue

[Bartimaeus]

 

We always need to be cautious when looking at historical figures to not use a modern lense.

 

Not everyone in past centuries were mass exterminators of the human species. The fact that most rulers were or were willing to be that doesn't really change that. It's not that I begrudge them what they had to do to preserve their kingdoms (there would be even more slaughter at the hands of others if their kingdoms ever exhibited weakness, I'm sure), but do I think they were "good" people? No, I don't think they were. Some were obviously worse than others, though...with Hitler and Genghis Khan and Stalin probably ranking among the worst.

[BruceVC]

 

 

We always need to be cautious when looking at historical figures to not use a modern lense.

 

Not everyone in past centuries were mass exterminators of the human species. The fact that most rulers were or were willing to be that doesn't really change that. It's not that I begrudge them what they had to do to preserve their kingdoms (there would be even more slaughter at the hands of others if their kingdoms ever exhibited weakness, I'm sure), but do I think they were "good" people? No, I don't think they were. Some were obviously worse than others, though...with Hitler and Genghis Khan and Stalin probably ranking among the worst.

 

Barti are we allowed to talk to each other? We didn't set any terms but we getting on well?

[Hurlshort]

Hitler and Stalin are modern figures. You can use a modern lense on them. Ghengis united his people and overthrew a civilization that had subjugated them for centuries. He was very much a product of his age, his conquests were undeniably brutal. But he also opened up the silk road, distracted different Muslim empires from their conquests of Europe, and created a legacy that is hard to even measure against anyone else.

[Oerwinde]

Napoleon was awesome. The 4 part PBS documentary on him is probably my favourite documentary

[BruceVC]

Napoleon was awesome. The 4 part PBS documentary on him is probably my favourite documentary

Oerwinde you always talk to me, no one wants to talk to me....waaaaaaaaaaah  

 

How is the wee man, has he done naughty things lately?

[Meshugger]

First Sanders got his votes socialized and now Colorado RNC skipped their caucus completely, effectively giving 34 delegates to Cruz without a single vote casted.

 

http://archive.is/al78o

 

...and of course everything went as good as the DNC primary in Arizona:

 

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/04/disgusting-colorado-trump-delegate-scratched-list-gop-convention-cruzers-take-delegates/

Edited April 11, 2016 by Meshugger

[Rostere]

First Sanders got his votes socialized and now Colorado RNC skipped their caucus completely, effectively giving 34 delegates to Cruz without a single vote casted.

 

http://archive.is/al78o

 

...and of course everything went as good as the DNC primary in Arizona:

 

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/04/disgusting-colorado-trump-delegate-scratched-list-gop-convention-cruzers-take-delegates/

 

That's completely absurd. America is trying hard to become the Soviet Union, I see.

 

Don't really see what's wrong with it. Yeah it's a confusing, clunky and odd system for anyone used to a Westminster type system, but that's not really the problem here since the rules are known and equal for both sides. 'Solution' to the problem is for Hillary's delegates to actually turn up, if they do then you get the original result, if you don't then it's their fault for not turning up or organising alternates.

 

If half the government MPs didn't turn up in a Westminster system and they lost some votes it wouldn't be the fault of the system, it would be their fault because they didn't turn up.

 

That's not a real argument. Just because something is "fair" - theoretically equal to both sides - does not mean it is not stupid. Here are some examples of "fair" systems:

• Caucusgoers are to sit in a sauna for an arbitrary time decided at the caucus by the local party committee.
• Everyone who wants to vote first has to swim over a river filled with crocodiles.
• There's only one place to vote per 100000 likely voters, and it's only open during working hours on a Tuesday.
• Anyone can change the voter registration of other people. You can only vote in the primary for the party you are registered as half a year before the actual primary.

Known rules. Equal to both sides. Still stupid systems which should be scrapped if they existed.

 

If half the government MPs didn't turn up in a Westminster system and they lost some votes it wouldn't be the fault of the system, it would be their fault because they didn't turn up.

 

No, MPs are elected as political representatives of the people and letting democracy be subverted by arbitrary minutiae like whether or not MPs can move their lard asses to a particular building should not be allowed. An MP can suffer from a debilitating disease of be hindered by accidents or traffic jams. Letting this have any bearing on important decisions is a farce, not democracy.

 

200 years ago, democracy would have required people to meet in person for votes. Technology allows for remote voting today. The only reason we still insist on the old ways is inertia.

[Valsuelm]

Even some mainstream Republican leaning talking heads are beginning to talk about the reality of election things, just how fed up people are, and the very real possibility of armed revolution down the road:

 

https://www.facebook.com/FoxNews/videos/10154153972106336/

http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/what-trump-has-wrought/

 

Of course, they're mostly only talking about it from a Republican point of view, but whole lotta 'Independents' and a great many Sanders supporters share much of the same sentiment.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Valsuelm

[Valsuelm]

200 years ago, democracy would have required people to meet in person for votes. Technology allows for remote voting today. The only reason we still insist on the old ways is inertia.

There's a bit more than just inertia involved.Two big reasons off the top of my head:

 

a) 'Remote voting' allows for many more opportunities for fraud than in person voting does.

 

b) 'Remote voting' makes it easy for the otherwise uninformed/uncaring voter too lazy to get off their couch to influence things. Voting should not be as easy and convenient as pressing a button on your TV remote or sending a text from your phone (as some have suggested it should be). A lot of people, myself definitely among them, do not want attention span of a rabbit couch potato voters, who will only take time out of their Kardasian marathon or Snapchat sessions to vote if they don't need to spend more than a few seconds to do it. Whatever one's political leanings, if one isn't invested in them enough to spend a little time to physically get to the polls or arrange for an absentee ballot, one should not be voting.

 

Time consuming though it may be (and it really isn't all that time consuming in most cases), the best form of voting for a variety of reasons is in person and on paper ballots, with the option for absentee mail ins for those who really can't make it to the polls on election day.

 

New technology is not always better.