The 2016 US Election (Part II)

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Locked
User avatar
Gaidin
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2646
Joined: 2004-06-19 12:27am
Contact:

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Gaidin »

Flagg wrote: Why, when all you need to do is just mandate open primaries? That's like swatting a fly with 20mt thermonuclear weapon.
Why? Because you're treating that as a bigger function than it is. Open/closed/semi-open/semi-closed are state law functions. You want them all to be open sir? Get more ambitious. Otherwise, states will continue defining them as they want them to be. Because that is their right.
User avatar
maraxus2
Padawan Learner
Posts: 340
Joined: 2016-04-11 02:14am
Location: Yay Area

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by maraxus2 »

Trump wins across the board. Smallest lead as of this post is 55% statewide in Maryland. Cruz and Kasich take a major shellacking everywhere. Thusfar, Cruz has only won Baltimore County, and Kasich has won a few low-population counties in Connecticut and Rhode Island.

Hillary wins Maryland (no surprise there), Pennsylvania (again), and Delaware (proving once and for all that corporations are people and apparently vote Clinton by a 60-40 clip). Bernie wins Rhode Island. Hillary down roughly 2 points in Connecticut with less than half of the outstanding ballots remaining.

So far Clinton has increased her delegate lead over Sanders to approximately 320 delegates.

Donna Edwards loses her primary to Chris Van Hollen in Maryland, thus depriving the Senate of its second best opportunity to elect a Black woman this cycle.

Results here
What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
User avatar
Gaidin
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2646
Joined: 2004-06-19 12:27am
Contact:

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Gaidin »

Clinton apparently retook lead in Conn. Fun times. This is gonna be good.
User avatar
Napoleon the Clown
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2007-05-05 02:54pm
Location: Minneso'a

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Napoleon the Clown »

Gaidin wrote:
Napoleon the Clown wrote:So does anyone else realize the general idiocy of Democrats that think independents/unaffiliated voters shouldn't have a say in picking a candidate from whichever party they're more likely to vote for? I mean, Democrats and Republicans both rely on independent voters. How is "We don't want your opinion" going to convince someone to vote for you?
Do you realize your idiocy? From the standpoint of pretty much everything ever written the Independents are a party. Hell, you can literally register as "No Party" to get in on Semi-Closed votes. Find a good enough Independent candidate that doesn't have to turn tale to Democrat or Republican and actually make Independents worth their salt and LOCK OUT THE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS and maybe the Democratic and Republican parties will give the two shits you want them to. And hey, if you pull that off, then we'll have a three party General Election where, again, EVERYBODY VOTES.
Classy, mate.

Democrats shriek about how we "Can't split the vote" and how a vote for NotDemocrat is a vote for Republicans. Do they want our votes or not? If they don't want our votes, fuck 'em. I'm tired of the narrative that we have to vote for the Democrat simply because they're not a fucking Republican. Democrats blame people who voted for Nader for the Bush victory in 2000. "If these people in Florida hadn't voted Nader we wouldn't have had Bush for eight years!"

If the Democrats want support from people who don't register with the Democratic party they'd best fucking listen to that segment of the population. We account for somewhere in the neighborhood of a third of the voting public and they literally cannot win without us. "We don't want to hear your voice, we just want your blind loyalty." Blind devotion to the party is what got the Republicans where they are.

If unaffiliated or registered independents decide to follow your advice, be prepared for Republican after Republican. You'll have earned it.
Sig images are for people who aren't fucking lazy.
User avatar
Gaidin
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2646
Joined: 2004-06-19 12:27am
Contact:

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Gaidin »

Let them shriek. I'm a democrat but I'm not one of THOSE democrats. You want a party make a god damn party. Every year I walk into the booth for a major ticket there are literally a half a dozen candidates that have managed to go through the requirements to get their names on the ballots. If you don't think someone under the party with the name of Independent(which they are a god damn party under every state when people have to register as "No Party") can't do that as well then they're just god damned lazy. I have no sympathy for them. If they form into something resembling a party you know what the Republicans and Democrats will do? They'll have about 2-6 terms of "Holy shit what the fuck is happening to us?!" and then they'll god damn well adapt. That's sort of how this shit works when as an entity you've been around for more than a century. If you can't even form, well...you can't even think about this shit.
User avatar
Mr Bean
Lord of Irony
Posts: 22463
Joined: 2002-07-04 08:36am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Mr Bean »

Cruz is on track to get zero delegates tonight. However it could go either way with him getting 0 or 2 delegates depending on if trump stays above 66% in RI. With 93% reporting he's BARELY over the line so it might or might not happen.

If it does happen it makes tonight a 100% no contest Trump victory.

And I'll leave this here purely because I enjoy the horse race.

"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe
Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
User avatar
Knife
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15769
Joined: 2002-08-30 02:40pm
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Knife »

Gaidin wrote:
Flagg wrote: Why, when all you need to do is just mandate open primaries? That's like swatting a fly with 20mt thermonuclear weapon.
Why? Because you're treating that as a bigger function than it is. Open/closed/semi-open/semi-closed are state law functions. You want them all to be open sir? Get more ambitious. Otherwise, states will continue defining them as they want them to be. Because that is their right.
Meh, you underestimate the disdain for them. I'm in a solid red state, not a GOPer myself, but even the hard core reds around here hate the system and want to reform it. Been a couple referendums about it that were only averted because the Legislature coped a deal they're slowly going back on.
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong

But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
User avatar
Gaidin
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2646
Joined: 2004-06-19 12:27am
Contact:

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Gaidin »

Knife wrote: Meh, you underestimate the disdain for them. I'm in a solid red state, not a GOPer myself, but even the hard core reds around here hate the system and want to reform it. Been a couple referendums about it that were only averted because the Legislature coped a deal they're slowly going back on.
You're talking one state. He wants a nuclear option to make everything open. Which...frankly again, I wouldn't mind. The parties would have 6 years of chaos and adapt. Fine. The problem is there's literally SCOTUS precedent saying that state can't go too far in overruling parties in their primaries. Here's your irony my friend. At the time, the Republican Party wanted an open Primary, which was against the law. Guess what SCOTUS ruled.
User avatar
Knife
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15769
Joined: 2002-08-30 02:40pm
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Knife »

I mentioned ONE STATE because you seem to be on a tear about how it's state to state. Even the State to State crowd is unhappy with the current situation.
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong

But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
User avatar
Gaidin
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2646
Joined: 2004-06-19 12:27am
Contact:

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Gaidin »

So what? The majority that are unhappy with their primaries team up and gang bang the minority that are happy with their primaries? I thought that's what our government was supposed to avoid.
User avatar
maraxus2
Padawan Learner
Posts: 340
Joined: 2016-04-11 02:14am
Location: Yay Area

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by maraxus2 »

Napoleon the Clown wrote:Classy, mate.

Democrats shriek about how we "Can't split the vote" and how a vote for NotDemocrat is a vote for Republicans. Do they want our votes or not? If they don't want our votes, fuck 'em. I'm tired of the narrative that we have to vote for the Democrat simply because they're not a fucking Republican. Democrats blame people who voted for Nader for the Bush victory in 2000. "If these people in Florida hadn't voted Nader we wouldn't have had Bush for eight years!"
But they did give us Bush! Or at least Nader did. Nader campaigned in Florida despite specifically promising environmental movement bigwigs that he wouldn't (they thought he'd split the left vote for some reason) for reasons best known to himself. His own exit polls, exit polling he was using to claim that he didn't cost Gore the election, indicated that a Nader-less election would have resulted in Gore winning by about 5,000 votes. Not a landslide, but big enough that all of the other shenanigans either wouldn't have mattered or would have been impossible. Good thing he was standing up for progressive principles!
Napoleon the Clown wrote:If the Democrats want support from people who don't register with the Democratic party they'd best fucking listen to that segment of the population. We account for somewhere in the neighborhood of a third of the voting public and they literally cannot win without us. "We don't want to hear your voice, we just want your blind loyalty." Blind devotion to the party is what got the Republicans where they are.

If unaffiliated or registered independents decide to follow your advice, be prepared for Republican after Republican. You'll have earned it.
Oh get off your high horse. Nothing makes decline-to-state voters any more virtuous than anyone else and condemning the entire country to live under a right-wing government because you don't feel catered to is nothing short of childish.

Personally, I have no real problem with open primaries. I think it's sort of odd that Bernie wants to be the Democratic nominee despite very obviously not being a Democrat (he isn't, btw), and I find it sort of odd that so far he's lost the Democratic vote in every state save Vermont and New Hampshire, but that's sort of incidental. I'd prefer that Democrats decide the Democratic nominee, but that's clearly not the way things work.

The caucuses should be completely scotched, though.

In other news. Hillary wins Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware, solidifying that 320 Delegate margin. Cruz won a single delegate and lost every county in every state. Trump picked up 105 delegates and looks increasingly likely to win the nomination. Indiana may be Cruz's Waterloo, rather than his Austerlitz.
What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by The Romulan Republic »

MKSheppard wrote:
The Romulan Republic wrote:Well, the Nazi recently won New York by a huge margin, but I honestly have no idea how he's polling in today's states.
I did my patriotic duty as a WARBOY to vote for Immortan Don. :angelic:
Elections are not a game.

Edit: In other news, what a miserably depressing night.

Connecticut was bloody close though. Delegates split, even if it is a small state.

I'm very disappointed that Pennsylvania wasn't closer, though.
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Flagg »

Gandalf wrote:
Flagg wrote:
Gandalf wrote:It reminds me a lot of the people who kept saying "Barack HUSSEIN Obama*" regardless of the context.

*Or other versions which kept bringing his middle name in.
Meh, that was very racist to scream ARAB TERRORIST!!!
Even for those who don't scream "Arab terrorist," I've seen it in the context to just drive home the fact that he's different, at every possible point. His name sounds odd to one's Anglo ears, and it's another way of attempting to discredit someone based on that oddness. Bean laid out my point more generally, but I wanted to address this specific bit.
Oh yeah, I agree on that. It's just I dunno, there's more of a raw element to the Arab/Muslim element. Not that I don't think it's in the same ballpark, but it's way across the field, you know what I mean?
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Flagg »

Gaidin wrote:So what? The majority that are unhappy with their primaries team up and gang bang the minority that are happy with their primaries? I thought that's what our government was supposed to avoid.
Seriousely, take your black/white, all or nothing bullshit and go fuck yourself with it. Your position is untenable and unreasonable given, you know: Reality.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Napoleon the Clown
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2007-05-05 02:54pm
Location: Minneso'a

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Napoleon the Clown »

Thank you for making my point, Maraxus. "A vote for third party is a vote for the Republicans!" That proves exactly what I mean: You lot depend on our votes. Without us, you can't win. But you don't want us to have a voice in your party, you just want our support. Talk about being entitled.

Utah is open primary, so I was able to have my voice heard. I would love to see all fifty states adopt that system. And yeah, fuck caucuses. Go by popular vote instead of assigning delegates. But if you want someone's vote you're obligated to at least listen to their opinion. Otherwise, they have no reason to vote for you. And the Democrats never learn the right lesson. They don't look at that third-party candidate that ruined it all for them and go "Hey, we should try to appeal to the people who voted for him!" They become convinced they were too ambitious and they need to slide further toward the "middle."

Christ, this is the same fucking bullshit we got out of Mitt Romney and his 47% comment. But it's okay, because reasons.


At this point, I would love nothing more than to see the Democratic and Republican parties both disintegrate. Neither one represents the people. That third or so of the public that sways the vote is stuck voting for the lesser of two evils, and the fractured nature of opinions in that group means they can't just band together and make their own party that will represent what they believe. Some of that third is libertarians, that want a government so small they can drown it in the bathwater. Some are outright communist. Some are full-on anarchists. Some are socialists. The only way we'll be able to have a viable Not Democrat or Republican is if both parties collapse inward.
Sig images are for people who aren't fucking lazy.
User avatar
Soontir C'boath
SG-14: Fuck the Medic!
Posts: 6853
Joined: 2002-07-06 12:15am
Location: Queens, NYC I DON'T FUCKING CARE IF MANHATTEN IS CONSIDERED NYC!! I'M IN IT ASSHOLE!!!
Contact:

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Soontir C'boath »

Napoleon the Clown wrote:Thank you for making my point, Maraxus. "A vote for third party is a vote for the Republicans!" That proves exactly what I mean: You lot depend on our votes. Without us, you can't win. But you don't want us to have a voice in your party, you just want our support. Talk about being entitled.
Hot damn, I need to steal this.
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."
User avatar
maraxus2
Padawan Learner
Posts: 340
Joined: 2016-04-11 02:14am
Location: Yay Area

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by maraxus2 »

Napoleon the Clown wrote:Thank you for making my point, Maraxus. "A vote for third party is a vote for the Republicans!" That proves exactly what I mean: You lot depend on our votes. Without us, you can't win. But you don't want us to have a voice in your party, you just want our support. Talk about being entitled.

Utah is open primary, so I was able to have my voice heard. I would love to see all fifty states adopt that system. And yeah, fuck caucuses. Go by popular vote instead of assigning delegates. But if you want someone's vote you're obligated to at least listen to their opinion. Otherwise, they have no reason to vote for you. And the Democrats never learn the right lesson. They don't look at that third-party candidate that ruined it all for them and go "Hey, we should try to appeal to the people who voted for him!" They become convinced they were too ambitious and they need to slide further toward the "middle."
Utah was actually a semi-open Caucus. The fact that you didn't know that makes me question whether or not you actually voted in it. And you actually have that back-asswards. Decline-to-state voters only have a choice because the Democrats and Republicans respectively pull together to put candidates on the ballot. You don't see a whole hell of a lot of independent voters working super duper hard to get actual candidates elected to actual offices. Instead, you all get to sit back and watch and judge us as an institution, while we campaigners do the yeoman's work of putting together a campaign and get people elected to office.

Again, I don't have an issue with nationwide open primaries, so I don't know what you're going on about me not wanting you to have a voice in my party.

And I dunno what you're talking about re: sliding further to the middle. Obama was significantly to the left of Kerry and Gore, and Hillary is about the same as him. Bernie is perceived to be out in left-field, though his actual record is somewhat more equivocal. Likewise, our Congressional delegation is significantly to the left of where it was in 2006, to say nothing of 2000. You keep leaning on these tropes that don't have a whole hell of a lot of evidence to back them up. This seems to be a pattern with you.
Napoleon the Clown wrote:Christ, this is the same fucking bullshit we got out of Mitt Romney and his 47% comment. But it's okay, because reasons
Please explain.
Napoleon the Clown wrote:At this point, I would love nothing more than to see the Democratic and Republican parties both disintegrate. Neither one represents the people. That third or so of the public that sways the vote is stuck voting for the lesser of two evils, and the fractured nature of opinions in that group means they can't just band together and make their own party that will represent what they believe. Some of that third is libertarians, that want a government so small they can drown it in the bathwater. Some are outright communist. Some are full-on anarchists. Some are socialists. The only way we'll be able to have a viable Not Democrat or Republican is if both parties collapse inward.
Oh boo-hoo. You have to chose a candidate that doesn't comport precisely with your views. Welcome to democracy. Leaving aside the fact that most independents are actually quite partisan, they just choose not to identify with one or both parties, you're fighting a strawman here. Since we don't live in a proportionally representative democracy, and since we devolve a lot of powers to the states, you're stuck choosing between two parties within the existing system. If you have a problem with it, you should do something to change it. Whining on the internet about how unfair it all is doesn't count.

There's no issue with the Dems bending themselves towards the median voter (wait, I thought that was a bad thing?), and it is in fact the only way they can win. Why you think the Dems should comport themselves to your views is, I must confess, a bit beyond me. You profess to hate both parties and are apparently planning on voting for Jill Stein. Good for you! I happen to genuinely like basically all of the candidates the Dems run, at least in my beloved home state. It's not voting for a lesser evil for me at all. How about this? You vote for your preferred candidate and I'll vote for mine. That way, you can preserve your smug sense of superiority, and I can actually do something marginally productive for the country. Everybody wins!
Last edited by maraxus2 on 2016-04-27 12:49am, edited 1 time in total.
What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
User avatar
Gaidin
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2646
Joined: 2004-06-19 12:27am
Contact:

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Gaidin »

Flagg wrote:
Gaidin wrote:So what? The majority that are unhappy with their primaries team up and gang bang the minority that are happy with their primaries? I thought that's what our government was supposed to avoid.
Seriousely, take your black/white, all or nothing bullshit and go fuck yourself with it. Your position is untenable and unreasonable given, you know: Reality.
Oh come on. I literally have a SCOTUS ruling in my favor in the most ironic position for this god damn thread. You really want to push this argument? The primaries have never been considered a full fledged right, but the parties deciding who their own representative will be. They could literally stop holding elections tomorrow and the courts would go "so what". You going to then try to take a case through the courts to force the primary elections back into place? Huh? The theory isn't exactly in your favor. Be realistic. It's there because they're being nice.
User avatar
Soontir C'boath
SG-14: Fuck the Medic!
Posts: 6853
Joined: 2002-07-06 12:15am
Location: Queens, NYC I DON'T FUCKING CARE IF MANHATTEN IS CONSIDERED NYC!! I'M IN IT ASSHOLE!!!
Contact:

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Soontir C'boath »

If you have a problem with it, you should do something to change it. Whining on the internet about how unfair it all is doesn't count.
Right, so there shouldn't be an issue when we decide not to vote for Clinton then, no? So quit bitching about what we want to do then.

You can't have it both ways calling us whiners and to just shut up and vote for Clinton while at the same time telling us to do something about it and bitch at us for letting the "Republitards" win.
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Flagg »

Gaidin wrote:
Flagg wrote:
Gaidin wrote:So what? The majority that are unhappy with their primaries team up and gang bang the minority that are happy with their primaries? I thought that's what our government was supposed to avoid.
Seriousely, take your black/white, all or nothing bullshit and go fuck yourself with it. Your position is untenable and unreasonable given, you know: Reality.
Oh come on. I literally have a SCOTUS ruling in my favor in the most ironic position for this god damn thread. You really want to push this argument? The primaries have never been considered a full fledged right, but the parties deciding who their own representative will be. They could literally stop holding elections tomorrow and the courts would go "so what". You going to then try to take a case through the courts to force the primary elections back into place? Huh? The theory isn't exactly in your favor. Be realistic. It's there because they're being nice.
Yeah, and if the parties did that I'd get what I wanted and they would both go "poof" and disappear. But they wouldn't. They would eat the shit dealt to them to survive because we exist in a place called "reality".
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
maraxus2
Padawan Learner
Posts: 340
Joined: 2016-04-11 02:14am
Location: Yay Area

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by maraxus2 »

Soontir C'boath wrote:
If you have a problem with it, you should do something to change it. Whining on the internet about how unfair it all is doesn't count.
Right, so there shouldn't be an issue when we decide not to vote for Clinton then, no? So quit bitching about what we want to do then.

You can't have it both ways calling us whiners and to just shut up and vote for Clinton while at the same time telling us to do something about it and bitch at us for letting the "Republitards" win.
JW, where did I say that you, or anyone else for that matter, has to vote for Clinton? As far as I can recall, I've spent most of my time in this thread talking about: A. things that are currently happening (Hillary is currently beating Bernie for the Dem nomination), or B. things that have happened in the past (Nader unquestionably cost Gore that election).

How you cast your vote is totally your decision, and I don't care very much what either of you two do with your ballots. Given that Nap apparently lives in Utah and you apparently live in Queens, it's not like either vote is going to do very much in the grand scheme of things.
What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Flagg »

Soontir C'boath wrote:
If you have a problem with it, you should do something to change it. Whining on the internet about how unfair it all is doesn't count.
Right, so there shouldn't be an issue when we decide not to vote for Clinton then, no? So quit bitching about what we want to do then.

You can't have it both ways calling us whiners and to just shut up and vote for Clinton while at the same time telling us to do something about it and bitch at us for letting the "Republitards" win.
You can't have it both ways, either. Because you can't deny that throwing a tantrum and voting for Nader essentially was a vote for Bush. And it didn't just hurt the democrats (in fact the argument could be made that it helped the party long-term), it hurt the whole goddamned country.
Last edited by Flagg on 2016-04-27 01:04am, edited 1 time in total.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Soontir C'boath
SG-14: Fuck the Medic!
Posts: 6853
Joined: 2002-07-06 12:15am
Location: Queens, NYC I DON'T FUCKING CARE IF MANHATTEN IS CONSIDERED NYC!! I'M IN IT ASSHOLE!!!
Contact:

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Soontir C'boath »

maraxus2 wrote:
Soontir C'boath wrote:
If you have a problem with it, you should do something to change it. Whining on the internet about how unfair it all is doesn't count.
Right, so there shouldn't be an issue when we decide not to vote for Clinton then, no? So quit bitching about what we want to do then.

You can't have it both ways calling us whiners and to just shut up and vote for Clinton while at the same time telling us to do something about it and bitch at us for letting the "Republitards" win.
JW, where did I say that you, or anyone else for that matter, has to vote for Clinton? As far as I can recall, I've spent most of my time in this thread talking about: A. things that are currently happening (Hillary is currently beating Bernie for the Dem nomination), or B. things that have happened in the past (Nader unquestionably cost Gore that election).

How you cast your vote is totally your decision, and I don't care very much what either of you two do with your ballots. Given that Nap apparently lives in Utah and you apparently live in Queens, it's not like either vote is going to do very much in the grand scheme of things.
Oh boo-hoo. You have to chose a candidate that doesn't comport precisely with your views.
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Flagg »

Soontir C'boath wrote:
maraxus2 wrote:
Soontir C'boath wrote:Right, so there shouldn't be an issue when we decide not to vote for Clinton then, no? So quit bitching about what we want to do then.

You can't have it both ways calling us whiners and to just shut up and vote for Clinton while at the same time telling us to do something about it and bitch at us for letting the "Republitards" win.
JW, where did I say that you, or anyone else for that matter, has to vote for Clinton? As far as I can recall, I've spent most of my time in this thread talking about: A. things that are currently happening (Hillary is currently beating Bernie for the Dem nomination), or B. things that have happened in the past (Nader unquestionably cost Gore that election).

How you cast your vote is totally your decision, and I don't care very much what either of you two do with your ballots. Given that Nap apparently lives in Utah and you apparently live in Queens, it's not like either vote is going to do very much in the grand scheme of things.
Oh boo-hoo. You have to chose a candidate that doesn't comport precisely with your views.
Of fuck off, he's obviously talking about having to choose Clinton or essentially accede to whichever slimy turd the GOP plops out.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Terralthra
Requiescat in Pace
Posts: 4741
Joined: 2007-10-05 09:55pm
Location: San Francisco, California, United States

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)

Post by Terralthra »

maraxus2 wrote:
Soontir C'boath wrote:
If you have a problem with it, you should do something to change it. Whining on the internet about how unfair it all is doesn't count.
Right, so there shouldn't be an issue when we decide not to vote for Clinton then, no? So quit bitching about what we want to do then.

You can't have it both ways calling us whiners and to just shut up and vote for Clinton while at the same time telling us to do something about it and bitch at us for letting the "Republitards" win.
JW, where did I say that you, or anyone else for that matter, has to vote for Clinton? As far as I can recall, I've spent most of my time in this thread talking about: A. things that are currently happening (Hillary is currently beating Bernie for the Dem nomination), or B. things that have happened in the past (Nader unquestionably cost Gore that election).

How you cast your vote is totally your decision, and I don't care very much what either of you two do with your ballots. Given that Nap apparently lives in Utah and you apparently live in Queens, it's not like either vote is going to do very much in the grand scheme of things.
Nader did not "cost" Gore anything. Gore cost himself the election by not earning more votes than Bush. Those weren't "Gore's" votes that ended up going to Nader. This is what people mean when they say various campaigns sound "entitled".
Locked