Delegates....a rigged system?

[kaz]

But he CONTINUED a Clinton policy, he didn't create it.

You're full of shit, as usual.

You know nothing, as usual. I'd explain it, but you are both butt stupid and ignorant.

I do like your avatar. Haven't gotten over Ryan pantsing you in High School, huh? He's not that big, you were like the only kid he could pick on. He has apologized for you that though, you know.

Paul Ryan: "I apologize for pantsing Syndi all those times in high school. Also for running her underwear up the flagpole. And for the wedgies and swirlies. I'm not sorry, but I apologize because I don't know, I guess I"m supposed to"

See, he's sorry, I think you should let it go now

 

[Cecilie1200]

No Arnold, I think that the internal workings of the parties aren't a government agency. How stupid are you?

So, you believe that private organizations should not be interfered with as they decide who our 2 choices for POTUS will be?

Dunno about Kaz, but are you saying private organizations SHOULD be interfered with as they decide who THEY are going to support for President?

I'm saying they shouldn't be allowed to operate as private organizations.

And that ... is why I keep pointing out that you're not liberals, you are authoritarian leftists.

How do you get past the Constitution on that? The general leftist authoritarian plan, ignore it? The commerce clause covers controlling political parties, right?

The Constitution says nothing about political parties.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Did you think that just meant protests and sign-waving?

 

[Cecilie1200]

The founding fathers specified how to vote in Federal Elections. They did not specify how private organizations should vote.

Private organizations can't vote, dope.

And corporations aren't people, either.

What does that have to do with anything?

Just answering your post with a fact: you said "They did not specify how private organizations should vote."

What is the relevance of those "facts?" Are you thinking the people who comprise political parties and corporations lose their Constitutional rights because they organized?

The relevance is proving you wrong.

I'm thinking that private organizations should not be in charge of a Constitutional right.

I asked earlier, but you and every other Right-Winger dodged:

Would you be OK with a private organization setting rules on who could own a gun?

There are no private organizations in charge of Constitutional rights, since expressing an opinion in internal matters of a private organization is not a right, Constitutional or otherwise.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sorry, but the people DO get to vote for their representatives in government. How people are presented to campaign to BE that representative is something else entirely, and does not need government interference.

Synthaholic I've been around the block with Cecilie1200. She doesn't believe Americans have any right to vote for their representatives in Government if the parties don't deem it necessary. thanatos144 echo's this sentiment as well.

They wish to keep the system where the parties select the nominee not the American people. If you wish to attack this system where hundred of thousands of voters are being disenfranchised then you are a whiner. In other words take a good ass reaming and shut up, these are the rules.

You want a say in the republican party? Become a republican and get active. Other wise stop whining like a ***** that the republicans wont let you run their party.

Are you unable to comprehend a simple concept? I want every American (registered voter) to vote and have their vote counted. I give ZERO ***** about the party's.

The party's have no business thwarting the will of the American people. Period..........."by" "for" and "of". You're perfectly happy getting bent over and having the party insert their 12" dick into your ass, most Americans aren't.

This is a primary. Not a general. Why does that confuse you so much?

Why have debates, why have voting, why have primaries? Primary or General, Americans should be allowed to vote and have that vote counted. Why does that confuse you so much?

To gauge and influence public opinion. Why does it confuse YOU that opinions aren't, and have no right to be, binding on anyone?

 

[kaz]

So, you believe that private organizations should not be interfered with as they decide who our 2 choices for POTUS will be?

Dunno about Kaz, but are you saying private organizations SHOULD be interfered with as they decide who THEY are going to support for President?

I'm saying they shouldn't be allowed to operate as private organizations.

And that ... is why I keep pointing out that you're not liberals, you are authoritarian leftists.

How do you get past the Constitution on that? The general leftist authoritarian plan, ignore it? The commerce clause covers controlling political parties, right?

The Constitution says nothing about political parties.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Did you think that just meant protests and sign-waving?

He thinks is means that government has been empowered to crush religion and religious people. Leftists always think that limits on government are actually powers of government

 

[Cecilie1200]

hy should I use the power of the government to force parties to nominate any certain person?

Not my argument, but please continue playing with yourself.

By saying parties should not be private instituations, you are saying you want government to control the parties, and ultimately who they nominate. Perhaps you didn't realize that's what you're saying.

Consider who you're talking to. It's entirely possible he's just spewing word with no clue what they mean, or that they actually mean anything.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A political party's nomination process only impacts those who voluntarily associate with the party and have a vested interest in the outcome. If I belong to the Green party, for instance, it doesn't matter to me how messed up the democrats are, because I'm not voting for any of the drones they're going to run

Really? Then why are Republicans so obsessed that Hillary is running? Just worry about your own Party.

That is the dumbest thing I've heard today, and that's pretty impressive, considering all the Trumpettes out there.

 

[cereal_killer]

Synthaholic I've been around the block with Cecilie1200. She doesn't believe Americans have any right to vote for their representatives in Government if the parties don't deem it necessary. thanatos144 echo's this sentiment as well.

They wish to keep the system where the parties select the nominee not the American people. If you wish to attack this system where hundred of thousands of voters are being disenfranchised then you are a whiner. In other words take a good ass reaming and shut up, these are the rules.

You want a say in the republican party? Become a republican and get active. Other wise stop whining like a ***** that the republicans wont let you run their party.

Are you unable to comprehend a simple concept? I want every American (registered voter) to vote and have their vote counted. I give ZERO ***** about the party's.

The party's have no business thwarting the will of the American people. Period..........."by" "for" and "of". You're perfectly happy getting bent over and having the party insert their 12" dick into your ass, most Americans aren't.

This is a primary. Not a general. Why does that confuse you so much?

Why have debates, why have voting, why have primaries? Primary or General, Americans should be allowed to vote and have that vote counted. Why does that confuse you so much?

To gauge and influence public opinion. Why does it confuse YOU that opinions aren't, and have no right to be, binding on anyone?

Seriously?

Your statement is sheer lunacy!

 

[HUGGY]

Oh......people having more money to spend isn't good for the economy?

Not unless they are spending it.

Isn't that the point?

Spending on the economy rather than paying taxes is better for the economy.

Yep. Government doesn't produce anything. So net it can't grow the economy. All it does is shrink it by what it wastes

I hope that is a sarcastic post. Repairing and improving the infrastructure, maintaining the military payroll and making the purchases necessary to supply and re-supply the military are just a few aspects of how government adds to the economy. Local, state and national police agencies and the various courts add a lot to the economy also.

Federal government. All of the stuff you mentioned is state and local.

That's simply not true. The Feds co-pay on all interstate highway construction.

 

[HUGGY]

Oh......people having more money to spend isn't good for the economy?

Not unless they are spending it.

Isn't that the point?

Spending on the economy rather than paying taxes is better for the economy.

Yep. Government doesn't produce anything. So net it can't grow the economy. All it does is shrink it by what it wastes

I hope that is a sarcastic post. Repairing and improving the infrastructure, maintaining the military payroll and making the purchases necessary to supply and re-supply the military are just a few aspects of how government adds to the economy. Local, state and national police agencies and the various courts add a lot to the economy also.

My God man. I hope that is a sarcastic post.

Infrastructure - when you fix your sidewalk, that expands your wealth?

Military - When you buy insurance or install a security system, that expands your wealth?

you're a mental midget, seriously? Those protect what you have, they don't make you richer. What is wrong with you? Seriously?

Well seeing as how I am a flaming liberal I just can't control what comes off of my keyboard.

 

[HUGGY]

Isn't that the point?

Spending on the economy rather than paying taxes is better for the economy.

Yep. Government doesn't produce anything. So net it can't grow the economy. All it does is shrink it by what it wastes

I hope that is a sarcastic post. Repairing and improving the infrastructure, maintaining the military payroll and making the purchases necessary to supply and re-supply are just a few aspects of how government adds to the economy.

Hold up there. It does none of those things without taking or borrowing money. That isn't adding to the economy. In fact, the people could have private companies do it cheaper, which they do anyway but we have to funnel the money through government meat hooks to get to them.

I think it is foolish to always believe that "cheaper" is better. Bush drastically cut back on the financial regulators. How did THAT savings work out for ours and the world's economies?

Bush sucked and that was stupid. But he CONTINUED a Clinton policy, he didn't create it. My God, you are a partisan boot licking Democrat, the people who fucked you and your family. How sad is that?

Very sad.

 

[HUGGY]

Isn't that the point?

Spending on the economy rather than paying taxes is better for the economy.

Yep. Government doesn't produce anything. So net it can't grow the economy. All it does is shrink it by what it wastes

I hope that is a sarcastic post. Repairing and improving the infrastructure, maintaining the military payroll and making the purchases necessary to supply and re-supply are just a few aspects of how government adds to the economy.

Hold up there. It does none of those things without taking or borrowing money. That isn't adding to the economy. In fact, the people could have private companies do it cheaper, which they do anyway but we have to funnel the money through government meat hooks to get to them.

Name the company that's going to take on the cost of extending an interstate, or building a new bridge between Lexington and Cincinnati.

The companies that build interstates and new bridges that government hires to do it for them

Right! You! Are! And naturally those wages are being donated back to these companies. Road and bridge workers work for free. There is no net gain in the local economies. My bad!

 

[Synthaholic]

You're flailing. Badly.

The U.S. Army and Air Force could easily monitor the border if we moved enough of them there from their useless current locations in Utah, Kansas, and other interior locations that are only there for make-work and to spread the Defense money around to all the states in order to make them dependent upon it.

Your failing, badly. I didn't say we can't monitor them and my example wasn't monitoring. I didn't say anything with the marbles about you being able to see them. here's a question:

I sit at one end of a room with no furniture and a hardwood floor and you at the other. Your goal it to prevent balls I roll from hitting the other wall. Do you want option a or option b?

a) I roll an occasional bowling ball

b) I take the material and weight of the bowling balls would roll and create thousands of marbles that have the same total volume and weight at the bowling balls. Put them in a bucket, and fling them across the floor.

Where in that example am I doubting your ability to see the marbles?

Our military has...what do you call it . . . oh, yeah - technology. Infrared, motion detection, helicopters, binoculars - all kinds of neat stuff, Wally!

Begging the question. I have a question though.
I sit at one end of a room with no furniture and a hardwood floor and you at the other. Your goal it to prevent balls I roll from hitting the other wall. Do you want option a or option b?

a) I roll an occasional bowling ball

b) I take the material and weight of the bowling balls would roll and create thousands of marbles that have the same total volume and weight at the bowling balls. Put them in a bucket, and fling them across the floor.

So what's your answer? You're an inane little boy making an idiotic argument

If the room is a large barren, hard to traverse wasteland like the Texas/Arizona border there's plenty of time to catch up with all the marbles.

Even the ones you've obviously lost!

Which is why we don't have illegal aliens in this country. You're stupid as shit

I was talking about once we had the military stationed along the border.

I want to believe you knew what I meant and are just continuing to be an asshole because that's what you are, but maybe you just have comprehension issues. Maybe I should be pitying you instead of laughing at you.

 

[Synthaholic]

Oh......people having more money to spend isn't good for the economy?

Not unless they are spending it.

Isn't that the point?

Spending on the economy rather than paying taxes is better for the economy.

Yep. Government doesn't produce anything. So net it can't grow the economy. All it does is shrink it by what it wastes

Who produced the Hoover Dam?

Relevance? You don't know what economic productivity is, Holmes

Did I stump you, dopey?

Who produced the Hoover Dam? It's not that hard a question.

 

[Synthaholic]

Isn't that the point?

Spending on the economy rather than paying taxes is better for the economy.

Yep. Government doesn't produce anything. So net it can't grow the economy. All it does is shrink it by what it wastes

I hope that is a sarcastic post. Repairing and improving the infrastructure, maintaining the military payroll and making the purchases necessary to supply and re-supply are just a few aspects of how government adds to the economy.

Hold up there. It does none of those things without taking or borrowing money. That isn't adding to the economy. In fact, the people could have private companies do it cheaper, which they do anyway but we have to funnel the money through government meat hooks to get to them.

Name the company that's going to take on the cost of extending an interstate, or building a new bridge between Lexington and Cincinnati.

The companies that build interstates and new bridges that government hires to do it for them

Who pays those companies?

Why don't they just do it on their own without government having to hire them?

 

[Synthaholic]

But he CONTINUED a Clinton policy, he didn't create it.

You're full of shit, as usual.

You know nothing, as usual. I'd explain it, but you are both butt stupid and ignorant.

Don't explain it, just cough up a link to Clinton cutting SEC regulators.

 

[Synthaholic]

So, you believe that private organizations should not be interfered with as they decide who our 2 choices for POTUS will be?

Dunno about Kaz, but are you saying private organizations SHOULD be interfered with as they decide who THEY are going to support for President?

I'm saying they shouldn't be allowed to operate as private organizations.

And that ... is why I keep pointing out that you're not liberals, you are authoritarian leftists.

How do you get past the Constitution on that? The general leftist authoritarian plan, ignore it? The commerce clause covers controlling political parties, right?

The Constitution says nothing about political parties.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Did you think that just meant protests and sign-waving?

It sure as hell doesn't refer to political parties, other than crowds being able to assemble. Like at protests.

Political parties don't petition the government.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You want a say in the republican party? Become a republican and get active. Other wise stop whining like a ***** that the republicans wont let you run their party.

Are you unable to comprehend a simple concept? I want every American (registered voter) to vote and have their vote counted. I give ZERO ***** about the party's.

The party's have no business thwarting the will of the American people. Period..........."by" "for" and "of". You're perfectly happy getting bent over and having the party insert their 12" dick into your ass, most Americans aren't.

This is a primary. Not a general. Why does that confuse you so much?

Why have debates, why have voting, why have primaries? Primary or General, Americans should be allowed to vote and have that vote counted. Why does that confuse you so much?

To gauge and influence public opinion. Why does it confuse YOU that opinions aren't, and have no right to be, binding on anyone?

Seriously?

Your statement is sheer lunacy!

It's sheer lunacy that they have voting in primaries to find out what people want? You're bitching and moaning because of the supposed sacredness of "the will of the people" expressed in those non-binding votes, which should immediately be put under the control of the government because they're what people want, and NOW it's "sheer lunacy" that they're about finding out what people want?

The only lunacy about my statement is that I bothered to make it to you as though you had two functioning brain cells in the same area of your skull.

 

[Iceweasel]

Not unless they are spending it.

Isn't that the point?

Spending on the economy rather than paying taxes is better for the economy.

Yep. Government doesn't produce anything. So net it can't grow the economy. All it does is shrink it by what it wastes

I hope that is a sarcastic post. Repairing and improving the infrastructure, maintaining the military payroll and making the purchases necessary to supply and re-supply are just a few aspects of how government adds to the economy.

Hold up there. It does none of those things without taking or borrowing money. That isn't adding to the economy. In fact, the people could have private companies do it cheaper, which they do anyway but we have to funnel the money through government meat hooks to get to them.

I think it is foolish to always believe that "cheaper" is better. Bush drastically cut back on the financial regulators. How did THAT savings work out for ours and the world's economies?

You shifted gears there and avoided my point. Cheaper isn't always better, I didn't make the claim. Try reading the words. I understand it's difficult if they differ from your firmly held beliefs.

 

[Kondor3]

Rigged cluster **** or perfectly normal?

Both

In that case you are saying it's a perfectly normal rigged cluster ****

There is no conflict.

It's a rigged clusterfuck, which, in turn, is perfectly normal for American politics.

The point being that it should NOT be perfectly normal, and that that state of affairs is nowhere near as acceptable today as it was in times past.

I laugh at those who defend the historical and present system by saying: "But those are the rules. Everybody knows them."

Yes.... everybody knows the rules... everybody (who comprehends and cares about the rules) knows they're stacked in favor of an Establishment or Ruling Class.

However, this year's election SHOWCASES those perfectly normal clusterfucks on BOTH sides of the aisle.

The Common Man, coming into an extremely late, collective awareness of the matter, now wants those rules changed...

One Person, One Vote

And to the Devil with those who want to stand in the way of accomplishing that.

Bernie knows this; it's one of the undercurrents of his Populist campaign.

Trump knows this; it's one of the surface currents of his Populist campaign.

In Trump's case, I half-suspect that he (1) expects to win, regardless, and (2) is setting the stage to burn-down the GOP system and its rules, once he's crowned.

If, by some chance, that turns out to be the case, then, burning those old rules down to the ground might prove to be a sea change and Godsend for the GOP.